Condonation of delay in filing appeals against order/judgment permitted on grounds of poverty. Court relied on Ramanlal Deochand Shah (2013), conditioning approval on forfeiture of interest/statutory benefits for delayed period if appellants succeed in first appeal.
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.
917.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
917 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11317 OF 2017
IN FAST/25166/2017
WITH CA/11294/2017 IN FAST/25478/2017
WITH CA/11295/2017 IN FAST/25474/2017
WITH CA/11296/2017 IN FAST/25199/2017
WITH CA/11297/2017 IN FAST/25197/2017
WITH CA/11298/2017 IN FAST/25181/2017
WITH CA/11299/2017 IN FAST/25183/2017
WITH CA/11300/2017 IN FAST/25185/2017
WITH CA/11301/2017 IN FAST/25193/2017
WITH CA/11302/2017 IN FAST/28133/2017
WITH CA/11303/2017 IN FAST/28129/2017
WITH CA/11304/2017 IN FAST/28135/2017
WITH CA/11305/2017 IN FAST/28137/2017
WITH CA/11306/2017 IN FAST/28131/2017
WITH CA/11307/2017 IN FAST/25201/2017
WITH CA/11308/2017 IN FAST/25207/2017
WITH CA/11309/2017 IN FAST/25195/2017
WITH CA/11311/2017 IN FAST/29418/2017
WITH CA/11312/2017 IN FAST/25189/2017
WITH CA/11313/2017 IN FAST/25480/2017
WITH CA/11314/2017 IN FAST/25487/2017
WITH CA/11315/2017 IN FAST/25205/2017
WITH CA/11316/2017 IN FAST/25465/2017
WITH CA/11319/2017 IN FAST/25472/2017
WITH CA/11320/2017 IN FAST/25203/2017
WITH CA/11321/2017 IN FAST/25476/2017
WITH CA/11322/2017 IN FAST/25463/2017
WITH CA/11324/2017 IN FAST/25484/2017
WITH CA/11325/2017 IN FAST/25469/2017
1/3
917.odt
ANKUSH SHRIRANGRAO KADAM AND OTHERS
VERSUS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NIMNA DHUDHANA PROJECT SELU AND ORS
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Randive Sachin S.
AGP for Respondent State: Mr. S. M. Ganachari
Advocate for Acquiring Body: Mr. S.G. Bhalerao
ORDER:
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. These are applications for condoation of delay of
caused in filing the Appeals against the impugned judgment
and award.
3. Mr. Randive, the learned counsel appearing for the
applicant submits that the applicants are financially poor
and they were was unable to pursue the proceeding due to
poverty. Learned counsel respondents opposed the
application on the ground that there is inordinate delay in
filing the present appeals and it has not been explained
satisfactorily. The delay caused in filing the appeals is
not accidental and it is an intentional. In the alternate,
the learned counsel submits that if the applicants succeed,
they shall not be entitled for the amount of interest and/or
other statutory benefits for the period for which the delay
sought to be condoned.
2/3
917.odt
4. In view of the observations made by the Supreme
Court in the case of Ramanlal Deochand Shah Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another, reported in AIR 2013 SC 3452, the
delay can be condoned on the condition that in case the
appellant succeeds in the first appeals, then they will not
be entitled for the amount of interest on monetary benefits
and/or other statutory benefits for the period of delay and
it is accordingly condoned.
5. Civil applications are accordingly disposed of.
JPC
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay in filing appeals against impugned judgment and award is permissible given financial poverty of applicants.
Whether applicants should be denied interest/benefits for the period of condoned delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramanlal Deochand Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and anotherRelied on¶22
AIR 2013 SC 3452 · Who else cites this
ANKUSH SHRIRANGRAO KADAM AND OTHERS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NIMNA DHUDHANA PROJECT SELU AND ORS
JPC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court