The Bombay High Court disposed of a notice of motion regarding an appeal that was delayed by five days. The court held that an affidavit stated sufficient cause for the delay and ordered the office to process and admit the appeal.
Delay in filing the appeal was condoned. 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
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4022 OF 2006
IN
APPEAL (Lodg.) NO. 848 OF 2006
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2283 OF 2006
Dilip Madhavrao Vaidya.... ..... Appellant.
Versus
</Visvesvaraya Industrial Research
& Development Centre.... ... Respondent.
Mr. Vinod Shetty for the Appellant.
Mr.Vinod Tayade i/by Mr.Piyush Shah
for the Respondent.
CORAM : R. M. LODHA, and
S. A. BOBDE, JJ.
DATED : 5TH DECEMBER, 2006.
P.C.:
The appeal suffers from delay of five days.
Affidavit in support of the notice of motion makes out
sufficient cause that prevented the appellant from
filing the appeal in time.
-: 2 :-
2. We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing the
appeal.
3. Office is directed to process the appeal and post it for admission as soon as it is numbered.
4. Notice of Motion stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(R. M. LODHA, J.)
Sd/-
(S. A. BOBDE, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the appeal warrants condonation of limitation.
Whether sufficient cause exists for the delay in filing the appeal.
Dilip Madhavrao Vaidya
Visvesvaraya Industrial Research and Development Centre
R. M. LODHA
S. A. BOBDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court