Thursday, 14, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Page No.# 1/4 vs Muntaj Ali And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 8015 Gua

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8015 Gua
Judgement Date : 24 October, 2025

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/4 vs Muntaj Ali And Anr on 24 October, 2025

                                                                         Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010147172024




                                                                   2025:GAU-AS:14124

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2324/2024

            NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
            HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT 3 MIDDLETON
            STREET KOLKATA AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT GS ROAD,
            BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI



            VERSUS

            MUNTAJ ALI AND ANR
            S/O DULU MIAH,
            RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KATAJHAR PATHAR, PS AND DIST BARPETA,
            ASSAM 781301

            2:LUCHAB ALI
             S/O MOMEN ALI

            RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KATHAJHAR PATHAR
            PS AND DIST BARPETA
            ASSAM 78130

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. R GOSWAMI, MS. M SAIKIA,MS. P BORTHAKUR

Advocate for the Respondent : MS. S P DAS (R-1),
                                                                           Page No.# 2/4

                                BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

                                      ORDER

Date : 24.10.2025

Heard Ms. P. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Ms. S. P. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1.

Though the office note dated 17.10.2025 indicates that service in respect of respondent No. 2 has been complete, however, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent No. 2 today on call.

The present application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 68 days in preferring the connected appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment and order dated 29.01.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employee's Compensation, Barpeta in E. C. Case No. 183/2022.

The grounds of the delay as pleaded in the condonation application reads as under:-

"2. That as the Judgment and Order was passed on 29.01.2024 the last date for filing the appeal is. But since appeal has been filed on 06.06.2024 there has been a delay of 68 (sixty eight) days in filing this appeal. It is stated that the dealing advocate at Barpeta gave his legal opinion dated 18.03.2024 on the Judgment and Order dated 29.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation at Barpeta to the Bongaigaon Divisional Office. The Bongaigaon Divisional Office after due processing of the file forwarded the same to the Regional Office at Guwahati on 26.04.2024 which was received by the Guwahati Office on 30.04.2024. The file was then given to the panel Advocate of the Company on 06.05.2024 for a vetting of the opinion of the dealing advocate at Barpeta. The panel advocate gave his Page No.# 3/4

opinion in favour of filing an appeal on 18.05.2024 and accordingly the file was given to the Counsel on 27.05.2024. Although the appeal was filed on 06.06.2024 a delay of 68 days occurred in filing the appeal which was unintentional, for a sufficient cause and beyond the control of the Applicant.

3. That the applicant/appellant respectfully states that the applicant has good grounds for appeal considering the fact that the Judgment and the Order dated 29.01.2024 passed without application of mind. The vehicle is a Transport vehicle and the requirement of law is that the driver must have an endorsement for driving Transport vehicles and therefore the owner of the vehicle ought not to have been exonerated for failure to ensure that the vehicle was being driven by a person holding a valid driving licence.

4. That the applicant respectfully states that the applicant/appellant by virtue of being an Insurer is in the position of a trustee as it is holding public money for payment of compensation to the proper and genuine claimants. Therefore, if this delay, which was not due to any negligence but due to sufficient cause, is not condoned, it will cause substantial loss of public money and also cause irreparable loss and injury to the applicant/appellant."

Ms. S. P. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 does not oppose to the prayer for condonation.

Upon hearing the parties and perusal of the aforesaid grounds as extracted hereinabove, this court finds that the grounds for condoning the delay of 68 days that has occurred in filing the connected appeal are sufficient and bona fide.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay of 68 days stands condoned.

Hence, the Interlocutory Application stands allowed and disposed of.

Page No.# 4/4

In view of the above, let the connected MFA/6468/2024 (Filing Number) and I.A.(Civil)/8264/2024 (Filing Number) be registered and listed accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter