Allowed

Smt. G.D. Sohal and Anr. v. Smt. S.V. Navalkar

Bombay HC4 Aug 2006CA/1030/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay considered an application for condonation of delay. The court found sufficient cause existed but, due to the length of the delay, ordered the applicant to pay costs as a condition precedent for making the rule absolute.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute subject to the applicant paying costs of Rs.7,500 to Respondents Nos.1,5 and 6 within six weeks.

Smt. G.D. Sohal and Anr. Vs Smt. S.V. Navalkar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1030 OF 1998

¶3

IN

¶4

FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.18812 OF 1994

¶5

 .............................................................
 Office Notes,Office
 memorandum of Coram,
 appearances,Court’sCourt’s or
 orders or directionsJudge’s orders
 & Registrar’s orders.

¶6

Court’s or
Judge’s orders
 .............................................................
Ms V. Advani for the Applicant
Mr.A.R.Patil,A.G.P. for Respondent No.7
Mr.A.H.Delhiwala for Respondent No.1,5
and 6

¶7

CORAM: A.S.OKA, J.
DATED: AUGUST 4, 2006.

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

1. Heard learned Counsel for the
Applicant and the learned Counsel for
Respondent Nos.1,5 and 6. Learned A.G.P.
appears for Respondent No.7. Respondent
Nos.2,3 and 4 are duly served with the
notice. Application is strongly opposed
by the learned Counsel for the Respondent
Nos.1,5 and 6. Necessary amendment has
been carried out by the Applicant to the
application for condonation of delay.
After perusing the averments made in the
Application, I find that sufficient cause
is made out. However, considering the
length of delay, the contesting

¶10

-2-

¶11

Respondents will have to be compensated by
ordering payment of costs.

¶12

2. Hence, Rule is made absolute in terms
of prayer clause (a) subject to condition
of the Applicant paying costs of
Rs.7,500/- to the Respondent Nos.1,5 and 6
within a period of six weeks from today.
Payment of costs will be a condition
precedent.

¶13

Judge.

Smt. G.D. Sohal and Anr. v. Smt. S.V. Navalkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. G.D. Sohal and Anr. v. Smt. S.V. Navalkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra S. Dighe Vs the Court Receiver and Anr.

Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika and Anr. Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika and Anr. Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Shashikant Ambrushi Kade

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Shashikant Ambrushi Kade

M/S Kavita Poultry Farm Thr Smt Kavita K Rao(Proprietor) Vs Ramesh Manohar Talathi(Prop Gayatri Traders)