Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4354 Gua
Judgement Date : 9 November, 2022
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010041382021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./70/2021
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
BUILDING, 87, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI- 400001 AND
REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI-5, REP. BY THE CHIEF
REGIONAL MANAGER.
VERSUS
AZIZUR RAHMAN BARBHUIYA @ AZIZUR RAHMAN AND 3 ORS.
S/O- LATE MACHADDAR ALI BARBHIYA, R/O- VILL.- HAWAITHANG, P.O.
LAILAPUR, P.S. DHOLAI, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM.
2:RINA BEGUM @ RINA BEGUM BARBHUIYA
W/O- AZIZUR RAHMAN @ AZIZUR RAHMAN BARBHUIYA
R/O- VILL.- HAWAITHANG
P.O. LAILAPUR
P.S. DHOLAI
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM.
3:MEHBUBA BEGUM BARBHUIYA
D/O- AZIZUR RAHMAN @ AZIZUR RAHMAN BARBHUIYA
R/O- VILL.- HAWAITHANG
P.O. LAILAPUR
P.S. DHOLAI
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM.
4:ALTAF UDDIN AHMED
S/O- ALIM UDDIN AHMED
OF CENTRAL ROAD
P.O. SILCHAR-1
Page No.# 2/3
P.S. SILCHAR
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM AND TEMPORARY ADDRESS- BELTOLA TINIALI
TAYAB ALI PATH
H/NO. 5
WARD NO. 58
P.S. BASISTHA
GUWAHATI-29
DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SISHIR DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
09.11.2022
Shri S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, who by means of this appeal has put to challenge the Judgment and Award dated 30.01.2020, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Cachar, Silchar in MAC Case No. 1397/2016.
By the impugned Judgment and Award, an amount of Rs. 22,98,000/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs ninety eight thousand) has been granted to the claimant and directing the present appellant, who is the opposite party No. 2 to deposit the same within a specified period.
Admit.
Call for the records.
Steps for service of notice upon the respondents be taken by registered post with A/D.
Page No.# 3/3
The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the name of the respondent No. 4 may be struck off as he is not an affected party. Respondent No. 4 is accordingly struck off.
Registry to do the needful.
The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the issue involved has already been decided by this Court only by interfering with one ground of challenge mainly ground of interest on the future prospect.
While on the otherhand, the other reason ground of challenge namely violation of the policy condition has been rejected primarily on the ground that the law in question is a beneficial piece of legislation. This aspect of the matter would be considered after appearance of the opposite party.
List after 4(four) weeks.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!