Allowed

Gangadhar Dattaramji Wadde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC18 Nov 2016CA/3186/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench allowed an application for condonation of delay in filing a review petition. The court accepted the explanation regarding the communication gap between the advocate and the applicant while balancing technical rules against the cause of substantial justice before disposing of the application.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in filing the review application and disposal of the civil application.

Gangadhar Dattaramji Wadde Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 ca 3186.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3186 OF 2016 IN REVIEW APPLICATION ST. NO. 5597 OF 2016 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1978 OF 2009

¶5

Gangadhar Dattaramji Wadde .. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Non Applicants

¶8

Shri Amit A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. S. S. Raut, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri S. G. Kawade, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶9

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND V. K. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2016.

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

. . We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Though the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are served, none appears for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶12

This is an application for condonation of delay caused in filing review application. It is submitted that, because of the

¶13

2 ca 3186.16

¶14

communication gap between the advocate and the applicant, the applicant could not get the knowledge of the order passed by this Court immediately. So also when the matter had come up for hearing the actual facts were not known to the advocate of the applicant in as much as on the statement made by respondents that the applicant is not in service, the writ petition was disposed of. In fact, the applicant was in service as on the said date.

¶15

The averments made in the application for condonation of delay are not controverted by non applicants by filing any affidavit. It is trite that, when technical considerations and cause for substantial justice are pitted against each others, the cause for substantial justice has to be sub-served..

¶16

Considering the aforesaid conspectus of the matter, the civil application is allowed. The delay caused in filing review application is condoned. The civil application is disposed of.

¶17

[ V. K. JADHAV, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶18

bsb/Nov. 16

Gangadhar Dattaramji Wadde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangadhar Dattaramji Wadde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Milind Ramchandra Gavale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hanmant Kishanrao Chopade Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Tower Vision India Private Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Jai Tulja Bhavani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Jai Tulja Bhavani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Prakash Motising Bassi and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others