The High Court held that the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause to condone a 92-day delay. Consequently, the application was allowed, and the appeal was listed for admission following due registration.
Application allowed; appeal listed for admission after due registration.
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.
ssm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2070 OF 2007
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 37242 OF1999
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda
of Coram, appearances, Court’s
Orders or directions and
Registrar’s OrdersCourt’s or Judge’s Orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr.H.V.Kode i/by Mr. S.A.Sawant
for the applicant.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.
DATED : 19th September, 2007.
P.C.
1. Though opposed by the respondent,
considering the averments made in this
application and para 4 of the rejoinder,
I am of the view that the sufficient
cause has been shown by the applicant to
condone the delay of 92 days.
Resultantly, the application is allowed
in terms of prayer clause (a). The
appeal be listed for admission after due
registration.
2. The civil application is disposed
of, accordingly.
[ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant showed sufficient cause to condone a delay of 92 days in filing the appeal.
Whether the application for condonation of delay should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Applicant
Respondent
ANoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court