The Court considered an application to set aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2005 and condone delay in removing office objections. Accepting the explanation of inevitable circumstances, the application was made absolute and the matter disposed of.
The application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.311 OF 2005
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.415 OF 1992
------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s Orders
of Coram, appearances, Court’s
Orders or directions and
Registrar’s Orders
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.V.Anturkar for applicant
CORAM : P.V.KAKADE, J.
DATE : 19TH AUGUST,2005.
P.C.:
. Heard the learned counsel for the
applicant as well as Advocate for
Respondent Nos.1a to 1c.
. This is an application for setting
aside the order dated 13.12.2005 passed by
this court (R.J.Kochar, J.) and for
condonation the delay in removing the
office objections. The contents of the
application shows that the delay was
: 2 :
caused due to inevitable circumstances,
and therefore, could not remove the office
objections in time. I am inclined to
accept the explanation and in view of this
aspect, the application is made absolute
in terms of prayer clause (a) and stands
disposed of.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in removing office objections can be condoned due to inevitable circumstances.
Whether the application for setting aside the impugned order is admissible.
Applicant
Respondent
P.V.Kakade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court