Dismissed

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vasant Pandurang Dalvi and Othrs

Bombay HC27 Jan 2011CAF/100/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court rejected an application for condonation of delay filed by an appellant challenging a Motor Accident Tribunal award. The court held that a pending internal review application in the Tribunal was not a sufficient ground to explain the nearly two-year delay in filing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay under Order VII Rule 11 CPC rejected; Civil Application dismissed

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Vasant Pandurang Dalvi… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2011)

spb/-

ca100-08.sxw

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

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 100 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 446 OF 2008

¶6

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., ... Applicant/Appellant. (Org.Opponent no.2)

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Shir Vasant Pandurang Dalvi & Ors. ... Respondents.

¶9

Mr. I.R.Kulkarni for the Applicant/Appellant. Ms. A.R.S.Baxi for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 4.

¶10

¶11

CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 27^th JANUARY, 2011.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

1 Heard.

¶14

2 This is an application for condonation of delay. Delay is nearly of two years. In my view, the delay is not satisfactorily explained.

¶15

3 Original Award is passed by the Motor Accident Tribunal on 22 December, 2005. An application for modification /review was moved by the applicant before the Tribunal after about eight months, alleging that there was some error in computation of the interest. That application was rejected by an order dated 25 April, 2007.

¶16

4 The applicant/appellant had filed the present appeal alongwith the application for condonation of delay on 8 January, 2008. Learned counsel

¶17

spb/-

¶18

2 ca100-08.sxw

¶19

for the applicant submitted that since the applicant had taken out an application for modification of the Award in the Tribunal itself, the applicant was hopeful that the application would be allowed and it would not be required to file an appeal. In my view that is not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. However, even if it is assumed that this constitutes a ground for delay, the applicant could have waited till his application for modification was decided. Admittedly, the applicant’s application for modification was decided on 25 April, 2007 and the present appeal had been filed on 8 January, 2008. It is not filed within the period of 90 days even from 25^th April, 2007. The delay after 25 April, 2007 is not satisfactorily explained and only vague allegations have been made that the cheque was required to be drawn in the name of the Advocate for depositing the court fees. In my view there is no sufficient ground for condonation of delay.

¶20

5 The civil application for condonation of delay is rejected.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vasant Pandurang Dalvi and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vasant Pandurang Dalvi 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

Municipal Corporation Bombay Vs Shrikant Mohanlal Sharma

Crystal Plastics and Metallising Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sanghi Motors (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd.

Sattar Bhanumiya Maniyar (Shaikh) and Anr. Vs Ramesh Bhikchand Rakhecha

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Surekha Sharad Gardi (Garde) and Anr.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Vithabai Ananda Kambale

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Saira Kasam Inamdar and Othrs