Allowed

The Director General of Police State of Maharashtra and Others v. Nitin Rajendrakumar Kunkulol and Another

Bombay HC25 Nov 2014CA/2565/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench allowed a civil application seeking condonation of a 253-day delay in filing a First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Finding the delay not grossly belated due to movement of the file, the court ordered the applicants to pay Rs.5000/- as costs before Registry registration of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 253 days delay in filing First Appeal allowed subject to payment of Rs.5000/- costs by applicants within six weeks.

The Director General of Police State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

ca256514.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2565 of 2014 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.5077 OF 2014

¶4

The Director General of Police, State of Maharashtra & others

¶5

Applicants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Nitin Rajendrakumar Kunkulol and another

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mrs.M.A.Deshpande, A.G.P. for applicants. Mr.Abhay Ostwal, advocate for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI &

¶11

A.M.BADAR, JJ. DATE : 25^th November, 2014

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1 The prayer by the Director General of Police, State of Maharashtra, the Commandant, S.R.P.F. Group, Dhule and other officers is to condone delay of 253 days in filing the First Appeal.

¶14

2 Learned A.G.P. is relying upon developments and difficulties in paragraph 2 of the application for seeking condonation. She submits that the matter was being looked into at various levels and has processed further. On account of administrative compliances, time was required.

¶15

3 Advocate Ostwal, appearing for claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, has strongly opposed the prayer for grant of condonation of delay, relying upon the chart which forms part of affidavit of the Respondents to show that within stipulated period of limitation, no steps were taken and everything

¶16

{2}

¶17

ca256514.odt

¶18

started moving only after that date. He further submits that even at various levels more than reasonable time was consumed and the fact that statute prescribes limitation and the period has already expired was not given necessary weightage. In Execution proceedings, on 21.11.2013, applicants appeared but they again did not give importance to the fact that period of limitation has already expired. According to him, the file has been processed very leisurely as if Courts are bound to condone the delay. He has also urged that correspondence between officers or their notings in the file are not available to the claimants. He contends that those notings may show a remark to the contrary or in favour of claimants by the officers. He has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Basawaraj & another Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer , reported in AIR 2014 SC 746; and in the matter of Brijesh Kumar & others Vs. State of Haryana & others , reported in 2014 (3) ALL MR 965 (SC), to urge that this approach of the applicants is liable to be condemned and right accrued in favour of claimants cannot be defeated lightly.

¶19

4 We have perused reply affidavit as also judgments on which reliance is placed. In Basawaraj (supra), the appeal was filed by the acquiring body before the High Court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act after delay of about five and half years. The observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs no.8 & 9 show that “sufficient cause” means a cause for which defendant (State Government) could not have been blamed for its absence. The other judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Brijesh Kumar (supra), shows that the delay in filing appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act was over 10

¶20

{3}

¶21

ca256514.odt

¶22

years and 2 months. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in this background, has made observations in paragraph no.11 and 12, on which advocate Ostwal has placed reliance.

¶23

5 In present facts, the chart, which claimants have filed before this Court, appears to have been prepared by accepting the dates given in the application for condonation. The dates show that file was constantly moving and a decision to file appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act was already taken. Thus, in this situation, we find that filing of appeal cannot be said to be grossly belated and there are no mala fides. The interest of justice can be met with by directing the appellants to pay Respondentsclaimants an amount of Rs.5000/- (Rs.Five thousand) as costs.

¶24

6 Subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- (Rs.Five thousand), within a period of six weeks from today, Civil Application No.2565 of 2014 is allowed. If costs are paid, Registry to register the First Appeal and place it for further orders.

¶25

A.M.BADAR

¶26

B.P.DHARMADHIKARI

¶27

JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

adb/ca256514

The Director General of Police State of Maharashtra and Others v. Nitin Rajendrakumar Kunkulol and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director General of Police State of Maharashtra and Others v. Nitin Rajendrakumar Kunkulol and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishor Prabhakarrao Sonde Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shri Sopan Kerba Hingole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sonaji Vitthal Giram Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vijay Tarachand Kataria and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vijay Kumar Ratnchand Bora Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sakharam Sadu Parkhe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others