Allowed

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Laxmibai Sakharam Modhave and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Dec 2021IA/1374/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay condoned a defect in time for restoring First Appeal No. 1652 of 2012, dismissed on account of non-removal of office objections. Subsequently, the court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal unconditionally.

What did the court decide?

First Appeal No. 1652 of 2012 restored; Interim Application made absolute; Appeal permitted to be withdrawn unconditionally.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

5-FA1652-2012.DOC

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1652 OF 2012 WITH

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1374 OF 2021

¶5

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd....Appellants
Versus
Laxmibai Sakharam Modhave...Respondents

¶6

Mr. S.M. Dange, for the Appellants/Applicants.
Mr. U.B. Nighot, for Respondent No. 1.

¶7

CORAM: Smt. Bharati Dangre, J. DATED: 21st December 2021

¶8

P.C.:-

¶9

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1374 OF 2021:

¶10

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2021.12.22 10:12:30 +0530

¶11

1.By Interim Application No. 1374 of 2021, the Applicant
seek restoration of the First Appeal which came to be
dismissed on account of non-removal of office objections,
being the paper-book not supplied within eight weeks. By an
order dated 24.01.2019, this Court had directed the Appellant
in several appeals to file paper-book within eight weeks,
failing which the appeal was directed to be dismissed without
reference to the Court.

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

5-FA1652-2012.DOC

¶14

The Counsel for the Appellant submit that the order was
passed in a bunch of first appeals and, therefore, he was not
aware that the appeal which is already admitted has been
dismissed.

¶15

2.The delay in bringing the Application, being of one year
and 359 days is sought to be condoned on account of lack of
knowledge.

¶16

On hearing the Counsel for the Applicant, I am
convinced that the delay in bringing the Application deserves
to be condoned and First Appeal No. 1652 of 2012 is entitled
to be restored to its file.

¶17

3. Interim Application No. 1374 of 2021 is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c).

¶18

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1652 OF 2012:

¶19

4.The Counsel for the Appellant seek withdrawal of the
First Appeal unconditionally. The Appeal is permitted to be
withdrawn and is disposed of as such.

¶20

5.If the Rules permit, the court fee shall be refunded to
the Appellant.

¶21

(Smt. Bharati Dangre, J.)

¶22

Page 2 of 2

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Laxmibai Sakharam Modhave and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Laxmibai Sakharam Modhave 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

M/S. Deepak Builders Private Limited Vs Sureshkumar Pukhraji Jain Alias Khimsera and Anr.

Smt. Ranjana Gangaram Dhondkar Vs Smt. Savitrabai Dharma Dhondkar and Anr.

Bhimrav Bapu Chavan Vs Manisha Alias Suman Mohan Golivadekar and Ors.

Smt. Janabai Shivram Chothe through Poa Suresh Shivram Chothe Vs Shri. Balgonda Shivagouda Patil and Ors.

Prakash Namdev Shinde and Ors. Vs Dhananjay Ramchandra Bhosale

Miyalal Matin Shaikh Vs Shabbir a. Hamid Shaikh (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs.