Dismissed

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Kalpana Sanjay Patil and Othrs

Bombay HC12 Dec 2008CAF/4303/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil application seeking restoration of a dismissal order dismissed on inordinate delay of over five years with no explanation provided, the case facts state no jurisdiction or maintenance stayed or granted.

What did the court decide?

Costs of Rs. 10,000 awarded to respondents; deposit of amount transmitted to Motor Accident Claim Tribunal.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

DSS

¶2

31-caf-4775-13 in fast

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4775 OF 2013 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4303 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 18901 OF 2008

¶4

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

¶5

Corporation .. Appellants vs. Kalpana S. Patil and ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. C.M. Lokesh i/b G.S. Hegde for the Applicants-Appellants. Ms Vrushali Penkar i/b Mr. Bhushan Walimbe for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶7

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 31 JANUARY 2017.

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

1] The first appeal was dismissed by conditional order dated 14 October 2008, as the appellants failed to take steps as required under the law.

¶10

2] In the year 2009, the applicants took out Civil Application No. 7545 of 2009 seeking restoration, the same was also dismissed. Thereafter on 29 October 2013, i.e., delay of 5 years and 15 days the present civil application has been taken out, once again seeking restoration. The entire application comprises of three paragraphs leaving aside the fourth paragraph, which contains the prayer clauses. There is absolutely no explanation for the inordinate delay of 5 years and 15 days. It is not understood as to how a fresh application for restoration is maintainable, once the earlier civil application for restoration was itself dismissed.

¶11

1/2

¶12

DSS

¶13

31-caf-4775-13 in fast

¶14

3] In such circumstances, there is no question of grant of any relief in Civil Application No. 4775 of 2013, which is hereby dismissed. Since, on the basis of pendency of all such applications, the applicants, which is a State Road Transport Corporation has deprived the respondents-claimants of the compensation due and payable to them, it is only proper that they pay costs of Rs.10,000/to the respondents-claimants.

¶15

4] The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited in this court is to be transmitted to the concerned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT). The costs of Rs.10,000/- now awarded are also to be deposited by the applicants before the concerned MACT within a period of four weeks from today. The respondents-claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the amount of compensation from the concerned MACT unconditionally.

¶16

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶17

dinesh

¶18

2/2

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Kalpana Sanjay Patil and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Kalpana Sanjay Patil and Othrs

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

Mrs. Fatima C. Fernandes Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jaykay Transporters and Finance (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India

Ramdas Shridhar Dargode Vs the State of Maharashtra

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Kalpana Sanjay Patil and Othrs

Popat Tavaji Somase and Ors. Vs the Addl. Collector, Nashik and Anr.

Mangala Shripad Burse Vs Moreshwr Khanderao Shaligram Deceased Sudhakar Moreshwar Shaligram and Ors.