Allowed

Vijay R. .Helchetti v. Smt. Shakuntala Bau Kuchekar

Bombay HC13 Sept 2007CAF/4516/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay condoned a 285-day delay in filing a first appeal caused by the applicant's lack of knowledge regarding an ex-parte judgment and award. The court imposed costs of Rs.1000 on the respondents and allowed the application to list the appeal for admission.

What did the court decide?

Condoned 285-day delay and allowed the civil application to list the appeal for admission subject to payment of Rs.1000 costs.

Vijay R. .Helchetti Vs Smt. Shakuntala Bau… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

ssm

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4516 OF 2007

¶5

IN

¶6

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.11080 OF2007

¶7

Mr. Vijay R. Helchetti... Applicant.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Smt. Shakuntala Bapu Kuchekar & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶10

Ms. Pratiksha Mohite i/by Mr. Pratap Patil for the
applicant.

¶11

Mr.Dilip N. Mandavia for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶12

Smt. Manisha Shekhar for respondent No.3.

¶13

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.

¶14

DATED : 13th September, 2007.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

1. In this case, the fact remains that the impugned
judgment and award which has been passed ex-parte, and
therefore, as applicant was not aware of the impugned
order, immediately after knowledge, visited and
enquired from the advocate about the proceedings.
Thereafter, application was moved for certified copy
and that process resulted into 285 days delay in
filing the present appeal.

¶17

2. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.

¶18

( 2 )

¶19

1 and 2 basically contended that whole endeavour was
taken to avoid the proceedings. Respondent Nos. 1
and 2 need to take various steps to serve but in vain.
This conduct itself is sufficient to reject this
application.

¶20

3. However, considering the merit of the matter as
submitted and the fact that the impugned order and
judgment is ex-parte at this stage of the proceedings.
The delay of 285 days, is condoned accordingly.
However, this is subject to costs of Rs.1000/- to be
paid to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The learned counsel
appearing for other respondent has no objection if the
application is allowed. The appeal be listed for
admission after due registration.

¶21

4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are at liberty to apply
for withdrawal.

¶22

5. The civil application is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a).

¶23

6. The civil application is disposed of, accordingly.

¶24

[ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.]

Vijay R. .Helchetti v. Smt. Shakuntala Bau Kuchekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay R. .Helchetti v. Smt. Shakuntala Bau Kuchekar

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

1. Smt. Chhaya Baburao Phadatare and Anr. Vs 1. Shri. Shankar Krishna Kadam and Anr.

M/S. V.M. Sancheti and Co. and Ors. Vs Shri Sohanlal P. Choudhary

Shridhar Shetty Vs Hasib Shah and Anr.

Dilip Khandagale Vs Smt. Shakuntala Bau Kuchekar

Dilip Khandagale Vs Smt. Shakuntala Bau Kuchekar

Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt.Ltd. Vs Panchali Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.