This order condones a 124-day delay in filing an appeal against a government order, finding sufficient cause related to government decision-making time. It imposes Rs. 3,000 costs on the appellants and lists the appeal for hearing.
Notice of Motion allowed conditional upon the payment of Rs. 3,000 as costs to the respondent.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.408 OF 2009 IN APPEAL (LODG.) NO.54 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.3902 OF 1992
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and others Vs.
Pessurnal Pamandas Menghrajani
..Appellants.
..Respondent.
Mr. P.G. Lad for the Appellants. Mr. P.P. Menghrajani – Respondent in person.
CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1st April, 2009.
P.C. :
This is an application for condonation of 124 days' delay in filing the Appeal. The reason stated in the application is that a copy of the order dated 22nd August, 2008 was received in the office of the Government Pleader on 17th September, 2008 and then they took time to take decision for filing an appeal against the order. Thereafter there was Diwali Intervening vacation and some time was taken in preparation of the appeal where after the appeal was lodged in this Court. The non-applicant who appears in person raises serious objections to the condonation of delay. According to him no sufficient
cause has been shown and even the correct facts have not been stated in the application. Having heard the parties and the fact that there is no reply to the Notice of Motion filed as yet, it appears that the Appellants have acted with negligence and have not stated complete facts for condonation of delay. However, some time is to be taken while making decision in various government departments for filing an appeal and it is not uncommon that some time is consumed in this process. However, for not taking any steps expeditiously, the Appellants must pay costs to the non-applicant. The interest of the non-applicant can be fully taken care by imposition of costs. Consequently, we are of the view that sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- as costs. The Notice of Motion is allowed conditional upon the payment of costs.
List the Appeal for hearing on admission on 23rd April, 2009.
CHIEF JUSTICE
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient cause was shown for condoning a 124-day delay in filing the appeal.
Whether costs should be awarded to the non-applicant for the delay.
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and others
Pessurnal Pamandas Menghrajani
SWATANTER KUMAR
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
