This order condones a 302-day delay in filing an appeal, conditional on forfeiture of interest, and refers the matter to Lok Adalat scheduled for 9th December 2017 based on the counsel's suggestion.
Condoned 302-day delay subject to forfeiture of interest; matter referred to Lok Adalat.
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.
920.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
920 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13718 OF 2017
IN FAST/35121/2017
SURYABHAN RUSTUM NIMONE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Pahune Patil Nandkishor J.
And Mr. R. L. Bhusare Patil
AGP for Respondent State: Mr. S. M. Ganachari
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. B. R. Surwase
CORAM: K. L. WADANE, J.
DATE:7th December, 2017
ORDER:
1. Heard.
2. This is an application for condoation of delay of
302 days caused in filing the Appeal against the impugned
judgment and award.
3. Mr. Pahune-Patil, the learned counsel appearing for
the applicant submits that the applicant is financially poor
and he was unable to pursue the proceeding due to poverty.
Learned counsel appearing for the 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 appeal is
not accidental and it is an intentional. In the alternate,
the learned AGP submits that if the applicant succeeds he
shall not be entitled for the amount of interest and/or
1/2
920.odt
other statutory benefits for the period for which the delay
sought to be condoned.
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 appeal, then he 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 application is accordingly disposed of.
6. In first appeal, the learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the matter is likely to be settled
in Lok Adalat and therefore this appeal may be referred to
Lok Adalat.
7. In view of above, refer this matter to the Lok
Adalat, which is scheduled to be held on 9th December, 2017.
JPC
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to condone a delay of 302 days in filing an appeal.
Whether the applicant refers the matter to Lok Adalat.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramanlal Deochand Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and anotherExplained¶4
Ramanlal Deochand Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in AIR 2013 SC 3452 · Who else cites this
SURYABHAN RUSTUM NIMONE
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
K. L. WADANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court