THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD v. SHRI. JAGDISH SINGH AND 2 ORS
Court: Gauhati High Court
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
Judgment date:
Case summary
Gauhati High Court judgment dated 2024-03-19. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD v. SHRI. JAGDISH SINGH AND 2 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
Page No. # 1/3 GAHC020000592024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I. A. (Civil)/16/2024 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD REPRESETED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER DIMAPUR NAGALAND VERSUS SHRI. JAGDISH SINGH AND 2 ORS R/O NST COLONY DIMAPUR NAGALAND 2:SHRI. HENMINGAN KIPGEN VILLAGE- HIDIPI SPO KALAPAHAR KARBI ANGLONG (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE) 3:TRANSKING CARRIER PVT. LTD 6 RAMLOCHAN MULLICK STREET KOLKATA-700073 (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE Advocate for the Petitioner : TAYONGCHUBA Advocate for the Respondent : BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 19. 03. 2024 Heard Mr. Tayongchuba, learned counsel for the Page No. # 2/3 applicant. 2. This interlocutory application under Section 152 of the C. P. C. , is preferred by the applicant namely, The United India Insurance Company Limited, for correction of typographical error in the judgment and order passed by this Court, dated 19. 01. 2024, in MAC Appeal No. 10/2019. 3. Mr.
Tayongchuba, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this interlocutory application may be disposed of today itself, without hearing the other sides, as no prejudice will be caused thereby to any of the parties, as only some typographical errors in the judgment and order dated 19. 01. 2024, are required to be corrected here. Mr. Tayongchuba further submits that at Page No. 2 of the said judgment, the name of the advocate for the appellant has been mentioned as Mr. Pfoseko Pfotte and the same ought to have been Tayongchuba; at Page No. 3, in para No. 3, the name of the appellant has been mentioned as The National Insurance Company Limited and it ought to have been The United India Insurance Company Limited; at Page No. 4, in para No. 4 the name of the counsel for the appellant has been mentioned as Mr. Pfoseko Pfotte and it ought to have been Tayongchuba; at Page Nos. 4 & 5, in para No. 5, the name of the counsel for the appellant has been mentioned as Mr. Pfoseko Pfotte and Mr.
Pfotte, which ought to have th been Tayongchuba; at Page No. 13, in para No. 24, on the 13 line, the name of the counsel for the appellant has been mentioned as Mr. Pfotte, which ought to have been Tayongchuba; and at Page No. th 13, in para No. 25, on the 5 line, the name of the counsel for the appellant has been mentioned as Mr. Pfotte, which ought to have been Tayongchuba, and therefore, it is contended that these Page No. # 3/3 typographical errors, may be corrected. 4. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the applicant and also having considered the facts and circumstances on the record, this Court is inclined to dispose of this interlocutory application at this motion stage itself, by directing that at Page No. 2; Page 4, in para No. 4; Page Nos. 4 & 5, in para No. 5; Page No. th 13, in para No. 24, on the 13 line; and Page No. 13, in para No. th 25, on the 5 line, of the said judgment, the name of the counsel for the appellant shall henceforth be read as Mr.
Tayongchuba, instead of Mr. Pfoseko Pfotte or Mr. Pfotte, for all purposes. And it is further provided that in page No. 3, in para No. 3, the name of the appellant shall henceforth be read as ‘The United India Insurance Company Limited’ instead of ‘The National Insurance Company Limited’, for all purposes. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Source: Gauhati High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.