UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Advocate - MR. S ROY, ,MR. R C PAUL — Review.Pet./278/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 151. Next hearing: : -.
CNR: GAHC010263012025
e-Filing Number
25-11-2025
Filing Number
Review.Pet./15143/2025
Filing Date
25-Nov-2025
Registration No
Review.Pet./278/2025
Registration Date
28-Nov-2025
Judge
Honourable Mr. Justice Budi Habung
Coram
Honourable Mr. Justice Budi Habung
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
10296 - Review Application in First Appeal ( 251 )
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Adv. MR. R GOSWAMI,MS. P BORTHAKUR,MS. P BORTHAKUR, ,MS. M SAIKIA,MS. P BORTHAKUR
Respondent(s)
-
1.NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Advocate - MR. S ROY, ,MR. R C PAUL
-
2.SMTI ANIMA DEB
-
3.SRI SAGAR DEB
-
4.SMTI SOVANA DEB
-
5.MRS MAMONI BEGUM
-
6.SRI BAIJNATH PRASAD
-
7.SRI MANJIT BALMIKI
Case History
-
—
Next hearingPending
-
12-Jun-2026
Honourable Mr. Justice Budi HabungView PDF
Case Summary: Review.Pet./278/2025 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. filed a review petition before the Gauhati High Court challenging paragraph 15 of the judgment dated 31.10.2025 in MAC Appeal No. 178/2014. The petitioner contended that there is an apparent error in the direction regarding compensation payment, specifically alleging that the appropriate direction does not correctly reflect the findings recorded in the judgment. Order (12.06.2026): The court issued notice returnable in four weeks, directing the petitioner to effect service on respondents via speed post within three days. The matter was listed for hearing after four weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
25-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. Review.Pet./278/2025
Case Summary: Review.Pet./278/2025 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. filed a review petition before the Gauhati High Court challenging paragraph 15 of the judgment dated 31.10.2025 in MAC Appeal No. 178/2014. The petitioner contended that there is an apparent error in the direction regarding compensation payment, specifically alleging that the appropriate direction does not correctly reflect the findings recorded in the judgment. Order (12.06.2026): The court issued notice returnable in four weeks, directing the petitioner to effect service on respondents via speed post within three days. The matter was listed for hearing after four weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts