Allowed

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. 1. Mr. Rajendra Saverna Singh and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Oct 2007CAF/2166/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed an application for condonation of delay in filing a first appeal under the Workmen Compensation Act. The court distinguished a cited precedent and ordered the appeal listed on merits subject to court fees payment.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; appeal listed for admission after registration subject to payment of Rs. 1,000/-.

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs 1. Mr. Rajendra Saverna… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

C.A. NO.2166 OF 2007

¶4

¶5

FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.6958 OF 2007

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶7

Court’s or Judge’s Orders

¶8

Mr.S.R.Singh i/b.Ms.Bhavna Bhat for the applicant.

¶9

Mr.M.B.Kotak for respondent no.1.

¶10

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.

¶11

DATED : 29th October, 2007

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Mr.Kotak, advocate waives

¶14

notice on behalf of respondent no.1.

¶15

	This		is an	application		filed
by		the	appellan	t-National		insurance
company		for	condonation	of 69		days
delay	in		filing th	e present		first
appeal	ag	ainst	the	judgement		and
order	dated		16.11.2006	passed	by	the
Commissi	oner		for			Workmen
Compensa	tion (Lab	our	Court, Mumbai).
	The		learned	counsel		for

¶16

¶17

respon	dent	no.1-claim	ant		by
affidav	it	dated	28.10.	2007	resisted
this	application	mainly	on	the	round
that	such	lethargy	and	latches	on
the	part of	the Insu	rance	compa	ny, &
as	insurance	company		is	spending
public	money should	not be the
reason	to condone the	delay.

¶18

The		learned	co	unsel	for
respondent		n.1	submitted	that	there
is no	case	made	out by	the	appellant
to interfere with t	he reaso	ning given
by the court.
The		learned	counsel	for	the
appellant		however			resisted
and submit	ted	that	respondent	no	.1 is
not entitled to	this	much
compensation as	ordered.

¶19

	Consider	ing	the	av	erments	made
in	paras	2	and 3	and	further	the
fact	of	obt	aining	nece	ssary	sanction
and	perm	ission	from	the	Head	office
and	the	time	spent	in	such	aspects
just	cannot		be over	looked.	In	my

¶20

¶21

view,	it	is	in	the inte	rest	of	both
the	parties		that	such	app	eal	is
heard	on		merit	instead	of		rejecting

¶22

such appeal at this stage on the basis of the objections.

¶23

	In	the	facts	and		circumstances
of	the	ca	se, the	citation	on	1996
ACJ		222-Ori	ental In	surance		company
Ltd.		vs.	Zarifa	& ors.,		cannot be
extended		in	favour	of		respondent
no.1.		The	present	matter	is	under
Workmen		Com	pensation	Act.		The
appellant entire amo	has al unt.	ready depo	sited the

¶24

	Taking	all this	i	nto account,
the	applic	ation is allow	ed	in terms
of	prayer	(a). Delay	is	condoned.
Appeal	be	listed for	adm	ission after
due	regis	tration.	How	ever, the
above	orde	r is subj	ect	to the
payment	of	Rs.1,000/- to		be paid

¶25

within two weeks to respondent no.1.

¶26

[ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.]

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. 1. Mr. Rajendra Saverna Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. 1. Mr. Rajendra Saverna Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajanan Rajaram Hulvane and Anr. Vs Anil Nirmal Khade and Ors.

Sinople Organics Vs M/S. Hickson and Dadajee Ltd.

Mrs. Supriya Girsh Rao Vs State Transport Corporation

Shyam Ramchandra Kunkule Vs Gangotri Shyam Kunkule

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Archies Garage

Bajirao Mahadeo Patil Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Othrs