SMT BAGMITA DAS vs SRI ASHISH CHHABRA Advocate - MR H S KALSI, ,DOLY DEKA — I.A.(Crl.)/165/2026

Case under Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Of on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: GAHC010020992026

e-Filing Number

03-02-2026

Filing Number

I.A.(Crl.)/952/2026

Filing Date

03-Feb-2026

Registration No

I.A.(Crl.)/165/2026

Registration Date

19-Feb-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

10302 - Interlocutory Application (Criminal) ( 383 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Of

Last updated 02-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SMT BAGMITA DAS

    Adv. MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV.,MR J SINGH,MR J SINGH, ,H BAISHYA,M. BORUAH,MS. C SHARMA,MS S JAIN,MR J SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SRI ASHISH CHHABRA Advocate - MR H S KALSI, ,DOLY DEKA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar SharmaView PDF

    Summary: The Gauhati High Court granted condonation of 53 days' delay in filing a criminal revision petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma found that the applicant (Smt. Bagmita Das) had sufficient cause for the delay as explained in paragraphs 1-5 of the application, and the respondent did not contest the plea. The delay was accordingly condoned and the application disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Feb-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Anjan Moni KalitaView PDF

  4. 03-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. I.A.(Crl.)/165/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Gauhati High Court granted condonation of 53 days' delay in filing a criminal revision petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma found that the applicant (Smt. Bagmita Das) had sufficient cause for the delay as explained in paragraphs 1-5 of the application, and the respondent did not contest the plea. The delay was accordingly condoned and the application disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case