ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SABITA ROY
LAWS(CAL)-1996-6-11
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 19,1996

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
SABITA ROY Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

UNION OF INDIA VS. ADARSH PROPERTIES P LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2005-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
YADAGIRI NARSAIAH VS. K. VENKAT RAM REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2014-1-149] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.R.Misra, J. - (1.)- This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal which is time barred by 471 days. When the appeal was presented a Bench of this Court directed the appellant to serve copies of the application upon the opposite parties by registered post with acknowledgment due and thereafter the matter be listed. When the case was listed on 17th of June. 1996 after perusing the application under section 5 we were not satisfied that the case for condonation of delay is made out. However, the order passed on 17th of June, 1996 was not signed as the learned Counsel for the appellant wanted to address the court in support of section 5 application. Accordingly, the case was posted today.
(2.)We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at some length.
(3.)The reasons mentioned in the application under section 5 are as follows:
"Hundreds of claim cases arising out of Motor Car accidents are filed each year in different Tribunals all throughout the country in which the petitioner is made a party and it is difficult for the petitioner to follow up proceedings of each case by contracting lawyers and as such the usual procedure followed by your petitioner is to entrust a case to a particular Advocate who is required to keep your petitioner posted with the development from time to time. The said MACC No. 134 of 1980 was entrusted to an Advocate practising in Alipore Court who was to act in accordance with the said procedure. The last information about the position of the said case was intimated to the petitioner by the said learned Advocate as per his letter dated 25th April, 1980. Thereafter no information in regard to the position of the case received by the concerned Divisional office at the petitioner at Howrah."
In paragraph 7(b) it has also been stated as follows:
"On or about l2th January, 1993 your petitioner received a letter dated 29.12.92 from its Head Office at New Delhi enclosing therewith a notice dated 28.11.92 received from the opposite party No. 1 asking for the reason as to why the award dated 4.10.91 passed in the said matter was not satisfied."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.