Allowed

Kurla Nehru Nagar Angoli Mala Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Ramkrishna Baldev Giri and Ors.

Bombay HC8 May 2012CAF/1421/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge, Bombay High Court considered an application by a Society for condoning a 19-day delay in filing a first appeal. Rejecting the respondent's objection that member consultation was unnecessary, the court allowed the condonation.

What did the court decide?

Civil Application allowed for condonation of 19-day delay; liberty granted to approach court regarding remaining prayer clauses.

Kurla Nehru Nagar Angoli Mala Co-Operative… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

18 caf1421-12.sxw

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1421 OF 2012 IN

¶6

FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.7852 OF 2012

¶7

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

¶8

Mr.S.G.Surana for the applicant

¶9

Ms.Kranti S.S.Anand for respondent no.1

¶10

Mr.A.A.Siddiqui for respondent no.5

¶11

CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATE : 08/05/2012

¶12

PC :

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

It is not necessary to issue notice to

¶15

respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 at present because the contesting party is respondent no.1 who is original plaintiff.

¶16

This application is preferred by original defendant no.3 for condonation of

1/3

18 caf1421-12.sxw

19 days delay in preferring the appeal against the judgment and decree dt.25.01.2012 passed by City Civil court Greater Mumbai in S.C.Suit No.1046 of 2008.

¶21

The learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is Society and therefore, they require to take decision by consulting all the members. This explanation is given by the applicant in para 5 and 6 of Civil Application.

¶22

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 vehemently opposed the present Civil Application. Respondent No.1 filed their affidavit in reply dt.8.5.2012. The learned counsel for respondent no.1 states that applicant has not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. She submits that it is not necessary for applicant to consult each and every member before preferring the appeal in this

2/3

18 caf1421-12.sxw

court.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the averments made in Civil Application, I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for condonation of delay. Hence, Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads thus:

¶27

“b) Delay in filing present First Appeal be kindly condoned and aforesaid First Appeal be heard & decided on its own merits.”

¶28

For remaining prayer clauses applicant

¶29

is granted liberty to take out appropriate application.

¶30

Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(K.K.TATED, J.)

¶32

Mohite

¶33

3/3

Kurla Nehru Nagar Angoli Mala Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Ramkrishna Baldev Giri and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurla Nehru Nagar Angoli Mala Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Ramkrishna Baldev Giri and Ors.

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

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jotiram Shirmant Kalange

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jotiram Shirmant Kalange

United India Insurance Company Ltd, Vs 1. Yogita Anant More, Aand Ors.

Ganesh Tikone, Member of Prerana Mandal, Zunka Bhakar Center for and on Behalf of Prerna Mandal. Vs 1. the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, and Ors.

Lynette Lucas Miranda and Ors. Vs Maulabux a Qureshi and Ors.

Vanitaben Pravin Patel Vs Raniben Parbat Bariya