Allowed

Nandkishor Satyanarayan Agrawal v. the Collector, Jalgaon and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Mar 2019CA/10459/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an oral order regarding Civil Application No. 10459 of 2011, the High Court at Aurangabad allowed an application seeking condonation of a 54-day delay in filing an appeal. Considering the applicant's financial status and lack of knowledge regarding the appeal period, the judge held that the delay was not deliberate and condoned it.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; delay condoned; matter placed for admission on 24/04/2019.

Nandkishor Satyanarayan Agrawal Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 929 CA 10459.2011 in FA St. 16186.2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

929 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10459 OF 2011

¶4

¶5

FAST/16186/2011

¶6

NANDKISHOR SATYANARAYAN AGRAWAL VERSUS

¶7

THE COLLECTOR, JALGAON AND ORS.

¶8

Mr. M.R.Malpani h/f Mr. A.B.Kale,

¶9

Advocate for Applicant.

¶10

Mr. P.M.Kulkarni, A.G.P. for R – 1 & 2.

¶11

Mr. S.S.Chillarge, Advocate for R – 3.

¶12

CORAM : V.L.ACHLIYA, J.

¶13

DATE : 26/03/2019

¶14

ORAL ORDER :

¶15

The applicant has moved this application seeking condonation of 54 days delay in filing appeal against the Judgment and order passed by the reference Court.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.P. for State and learned counsel for respondent No. 3/acquiring body.

¶17

In brief, it is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that the delay of 54 days caused in filing the appeal was not deliberate but due to the reasons set out in the application. It is contended that the applicant is a poor agriculturist. Due to poor financial condition, he could not arrange to file appeal within the stipulated period prescribed for filing the appeal. So also, the

¶18

2 929 CA 10459.2011 in FA St. 16186.2011

¶19

applicant was not aware about the statutory period provided for filing the appeal.

¶20

On the other hand learned A.G.P. and learned counsel representing respondent No. 3 submit that the cause assigned for condonation of delay can not be treated as sufficient cause to condone the delay.

¶21

Considering the submissions advanced in the light of unchallenged pleadings made in the application specifying the reasons for condoning delay, I am of the view that delay deserves to be condoned. In case delay is not condoned, there is every likelihood that meritorious matter may be rejected for technical reasons. On the other hand, no serious prejudice would be caused to the respondents if delay is condoned. Accordingly the application is allowed. Delay is condoned.

¶22

Place the appeal for admission on 24/04/2019.

¶23

[V.L.ACHLIYA] JUDGE

¶24

KNP.

Nandkishor Satyanarayan Agrawal v. the Collector, Jalgaon and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandkishor Satyanarayan Agrawal v. the Collector, Jalgaon and Ors.

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

New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Branch Manager, Aurangabad Vs Ashish Vimalkant Pande and Ors.

Divisional Manager, M.S.R.T.C., Division Office, Beed Vs Kantabai Lahurao Gaikwad and Anr.

Divisional Manager, M.S.R.T.C., Division Office, Beed Vs Kantabai Lahurao Gaikwad and Anr.

M/S the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Thr Its Sr. Div. Manager, Aurangabad Vs Umaji Namdeo Bhise and Ors.

M/S Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sk. Ayub Sk. Ameer Qureshi and Another

The Ex. Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department Osmanabad Vs Nivrutti Ganpati Mitakari (Died) Thr Lrs Indubai and Ors.