Allowed

Walmik Sukdeo Kandekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Aug 2018CA/8058/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad condoned a delay of over 1161 days in filing civil appeals by the applicants. The court accepted an undertaking from the applicants that they would not claim interest or statutory benefits for the delayed period and ordered registration and notice issuance.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay; registration of appeals; notice issuance; undertakings filed within four weeks.

Walmik Sukdeo Kandekar Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

933 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8057 OF 2018

¶4

IN FAST/2580/2018

¶5

WITH

¶6

CA/8058/2018 IN FAST/2659/2018

¶7

LAXMAN SUKDEO KANDEKAR

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

¶10

...

¶11

Advocate for Applicants : Mr.AH Karalkar, Adv.
h/for Mr. Kulkarni Mukul S.
Mr. AM Phule, AGP for Respondents 1 & 2.

¶12

CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.

¶13

DATE :29th August,2018.

¶14

PER COURT :

¶15

1.Heard learned Counsel appearing for

¶16

applicants and learned AGP Shri Phule, appearing
for Respondent-State.

¶17

.Respondent No.3 though is duly served,
no one has entered appearance on its behalf.

¶18

2.Delay of 1161 days has occurred in

¶19

filing the present appeal/s by the applicant/s.

¶20

3.Learned Counsel for the applicants

¶21

submitted that financial crunch was the main

¶22

reason that the applicants could not prefer the

¶23

¶24

appeals seeking enhancement in the amount of
compensation before this Court. The learned

¶25

counsel submitted that the applicants are ready
to file an undertaking that they will not claim
any interest or statutory benefit of the period
of delay in the event of their success in the
appeals. The learned counsel further submitted

¶26

that on such condition, the applicants may be
given an opportunity to prosecute their appeals
on merits. The learned counsel relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶27

K.Subbarayudu and Ors. Vs. Special Deputy

¶28

Collector (Land Acquisition) - (2017) 12 SCC 840 .

¶29

4.Learned AGP has resisted the request so

¶30

made. He submitted that financial crunch cannot

¶31

be a ground for condoning the delay. The learned

¶32

AGP further submitted that in absence of any

¶33

cogent and sufficient reasons, the huge delay of

¶34

1342 days cannot be condoned. The learned AGP
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

¶35

Court in the case of Basavraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition officer – (2013) 14 SCC

¶36

¶37

81.

¶38

5.I have carefully considered the

¶39

submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. It is true that financial crunch may not be the ground for condoning the delay. However, as has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.Subbarudu (cited supra), the said reason cannot

¶40

be outrightly rejected in every case. The
applicants themselves have undertaken not to

¶41

claim any interest or statutory benefit of the
period of delay in the event of their success in
the appeals. In the circumstances, I am inclined
to allow the present applications. Hence, the
following order, -

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i.The delay caused in filing the appeal is
condoned.

¶44

ii.Appeals be registered in accordance with
law. After registration of the appeals, issue
notices to the respondents.

¶45

iii.LearnedAGPwaivesservicefor

¶46

¶47

respondents Nos.1 & 2.

¶48

iv.It is clarified that as undertaken by

¶49

the applicants, they shall not be entitled for
any statutory benefit or interest on the amount
of enhanced compensation for the period of delay

¶50

in the event of their success in the appeals.

¶51

v.Theapplicant/stofurnishthe

¶52

undertaking within four weeks.

¶53

vi.The Civil Applications stand disposed
of. Copy of the present order be kept in
Appeals.

¶54

(P.R.BORA)

¶55

 JUDGE

¶56

bdv/

Walmik Sukdeo Kandekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Walmik Sukdeo Kandekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Div. Manager, Aurangabad Vs Sharda Rajendra Badakh and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Div. Manager, Aurangabad Vs Sharda Rajendra Badakh and Ors.

The State of Mah Thr. Collector, Jalgaon and Ors. Vs Ananda Santosh Patil, Died, Thr. L.Rs. Ramsing Ananda Patil, Died, Thr. L.Rs.Kusumbai R Patil and O

Laxman Sukdeo Kandekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Branch Manager Aurangabad Vs Kusumbai W/O Panditrao Rankhamb and Ors.

Suryakant Madhukar Gutte and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.