Allowed

Nilkanth Narayan Ramteke v. Chief General Manager, Ballarpur Area Wcl Ballarpur, and Others

Bombay HC31 Jul 2017CAO/135/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench admitted to the lawyer of mist. The delay in filing the condonation application. The court allowed the condonation of delay and restored the appeal to its original file, by recalling the registrar's earlier order. The appeal against this order was dismissed. The court held that the application allows the appeal to be restored. The delay is consi

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay admitted; Registrar's order recalled; Appeal restored to original file.

Nilkanth Narayan Ramteke Vs Chief General… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

cao135.16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶4

CA(o) No.135/2016 IN mcA St.No.977/2016 in Rej.FA No.796/2015 in FA St.No. 16422/2015 Nilkanth Nayaran Ramteke

¶5

¶6

Chief General Manager, Ballarpur Area WCL, Ballarpur and others.

¶7

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

¶8

Smt. S.A.Dhawas, Advocate for applicant. Smt. Pushpalata Rajan, Adv. For R.Nos. 1 and 2. Shri B.B.Raipure, Adv. For R.no.3.

¶9

CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J. DATE : JULY 31, 2017

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

Shri Raipure, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that there is no bonafide reason given in the application. However, on going through the application, I find that there are no malafides on the part of the appellant. It appears that the absence of the appellant was only on account of failure of learned counsel to represent him effectively. Learned counsel for the appellant has also admitted his mistake by submitting that it was only on account of sheer inadvertence on his part.

¶12

Therefore, I am of the view that this application deserves to be allowed. The application is allowed. The delay in filing restoration application

cao135.16

is condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

¶17

MCA St.No.977/2016

¶18

Heard.

¶19

For the reasons stated in the application and in view of the order passed on condonation of delay application bearing No. CAO No.135/2016, this application is allowed. Order passed by learned Registrar(Judicial) dated 16.11.2015 is recalled. The appeal is restored to its original file. Office objections, if any, be removed within two weeks, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court.

¶20

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

Andurkar

Nilkanth Narayan Ramteke v. Chief General Manager, Ballarpur Area Wcl Ballarpur, and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilkanth Narayan Ramteke v. Chief General Manager, Ballarpur Area Wcl Ballarpur, and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udhav Akaramji Bhalchakra and Ors. Vs Secretary of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Legal Cell and Ors.

Mrs. Ekta @ Sarika W/O Vedprakash Balriya Vs Vedprakash Fulchand Barliya

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Thr. Divisional Manager, Amravati Vs Laxmi Mahendra Chimane and Others

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Nagpur, through Divisional Manager, Amravati, Rep. by T.P. Hub Vs Smt. Vidya Ranu Ghule and Others

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corp. through Executive Engineer Lower Wana Project Division Vs Krishnarao Shivram Shirpurkar

Sneha Jankiram Chavan Vs Mr. Ashok S/O Jagannath Sonawane, Education Officer (Sec.), Z. P. Akola