Allowed

Saud Shabbir Shaikh v. Farooq Ismail Shaikh and Another

Bombay HC9 Dec 2022CA/2807/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court condoned a delay of 3160 days in filing a civil appeal, attributing part of the delay to the applicant's review application and the COVID-19 pandemic. The applicant is denied interest on enhanced compensation accumulated up to March 2020.

What did the court decide?

Condoned delay of 3160 days; appeal registered; applicant denied interest on enhanced compensation up to March 2020.

Saud Shabbir Shaikh Vs Farooq Ismail Shaikh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

ca2807.15.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2807 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 1413 OF 2015

¶4

Saud s/o Shabbir Shaikh

¶5

Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Farooq S/o Ismail Shaikh & another

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr. Vishal Kakde, Advocate holding for Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. J. R. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. A. G. Kanade, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶10

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE :9^th DECEMBER, 2022.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

This application is fled by the applicant seeking

¶13

condonation of delay of 3160 days occurred in preferring the appeal.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for respondent No. 2. None appears for respondent No. 1 inspite of service.

¶15

It is the contention of applicant that after passing of the judgment and award dated 22^nd February, 2006, he preferred review of the same. According to him, review application consumed

¶16

¶17

ca2807.15.odt

¶18

considerable time for its adjudication and after decision on the review application, present appeal is fled and, therefore, delay of 3160 days is caused in preferring the appeal. According to him, delay is not intentional or deliberate.

¶19

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 opposed the said contention and sought dismissal of the application.

¶20

No doubt, applicant could have preferred appeal against the impugned judgment and award immediately inspite of fling review petition. However, preferring review of application against the said judgment before the Tribunal need not be considered as a deliberate act on his part in not fling appeal in time. In any event, applicant as per his bonafde understanding was seeking to pursue a remedy for just compensation, under said review. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to right of applicant to seek just compensation, he cannot be denied said right on technicalities.

¶21

Since, there is delay of 3160 days and the application is fled in the year 2015, for no fault on the part of respondents, they

¶22

- 3 -

¶23

ca2807.15.odt

¶24

cannot be saddled with interest on the amount of enhanced compensation allowed during this period, if any. However, considering the fact that since March 2020, for a substantial period, regular working of the courts was hampered by Covid-19 pandemic, excluding the said period, the amount of interest needs to be denied to applicant. Hence the following order :-

¶25

ORDER

¶26

i) Application stands allowed.

¶27

ii) Delay of 3160 days caused in preferring appeal stands condoned.

¶28

iii) Appeal be registered.

¶29

iv) Applicant is not entitled to receive any amount of interest on enhanced compensation from the date of impugned judgment till March, 2020, if he succeeds in the appeal.

¶30

v) Civil application stands disposed of.

¶31

dyb

Saud Shabbir Shaikh v. Farooq Ismail Shaikh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saud Shabbir Shaikh v. Farooq Ismail Shaikh and Another

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

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., vs Bhushan Suresh Sonar and Anr.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs Swati Sudesh Kadam and Ors.

C. Antony Louis vs the Hema Park Coop. Housing Society

Tirupati Computer Stationers Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad and Anr. Vs Ashok Chandrabhan Salunke and Ors.

Bharatbai Balaji Zokdare and Ors. Vs Kazi Abdul Wahid Saifuddin and Anr.

Dnyandeo Rangnath Mali and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.