This order condones the 34-day delay in filing an appeal in an arbitration matter, finding it was neither willful nor deliberate. The appeal was processed for admission, and the notice of motion was disposed of.
The delay of 34 days was condoned; the appeal was to be processed for admission and the notice of motion was disposed of.
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 ORIGINAL SIDE
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3538 OF 2005 IN APPEAL (LODGING) NO.554 OF 2005 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.239 OF 2003
PEC Ltd. Appellants vs. Curzon Maritime Ltd. Respondents Mr.S.P.Srivastava i/b.M/s.Consulta Juris for the applicants. Mr.Prashant Pratap for the respondents. CORAM : R.M. LODHA & D.G. KARNIK, JJ . DATED : 25th November 2005 P.C. Heard. 2. The appeal suffers from delay of 34 days. 3. Taking overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the delay of 34 days was neither wilful nor deliberate on the part of the appellants. 4. We are, therefore, satisfied that sufficient cause for condonation of delay is made out. 5. We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing the
2
appeal.
(R.M.LODHA, J.)
(D. G. KARNIK, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient cause is made out for condoning a delay of 34 days in filing an appeal.
Whether the appeal should be admitted after condoning the delay.
PEC Ltd.
Curzon Maritime Ltd.
R.M. LODHA
D.G. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
