Allowed

Food Corporation of India v. Mantralaya Central Consumers Co-Oerative Wholesale and Regail Stores Ltd.

Bombay HC21 Apr 2022CAF/1944/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, in Civil Application No. 1944 of 2016, allowed the condonation of a 244-day delay in filing a First Appeal. The delay was attributable to the unawareness of the Applicant about the dismissal of their suit due to the trial advocate's failure to inform them.

What did the court decide?

Condoned the delay of 244 days in filing the First Appeal in First Appeal (ST) No. 3392 of 2016.

Food Corporation of India Vs Mantralaya… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

05-CAF-1944-2016.DOC

¶2

Arjun

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1944 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 3392 OF 2016

¶5

Food Corporation of India …Applicant Versus Mantralaya Central Consumers Co-operative …Respondent Wholesale & Retail Stores Ltd.

¶6

None for the Applicant. None for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM Madhav J. Jamdar, J. DATED: 21^st April, 2022

¶8

PC:-

¶9

1. None appears for the Applicant and for the Respondent.

¶10

2. This Civil Application is filed by the Applicant seeking condonation of delay of 244 days in filing the Appeal. The First Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 23^rd April, 2015 passed by the Learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai in S. C. Suit No. 9680 of 1990. The Appeal has been filed on 3^rd February, 2016. The Applicant has set out the reasons in the

¶11

05-CAF-1944-2016.DOC

¶12

Civil Application. The main reason given is that the Advocate appearing for the Applicant in the Trial Court had not informed the Applicant about the dismissal of the Suit filed by the Applicant by the impugned judgment and decree.

¶13

3. It is therefore stated that, as soon as the Applicant came to know about the dismissal of the Suit, the Applicant approached another Advocate to prefer the Appeal and therefore, there is delay in lodging the Appeal.

¶14

4. The sole Respondent has been served. Thereafter, this Civil Application came up before this Court on 18^th September, 2021 when the Applicant’s were represented through their Advocate, however, none appeared for the Sole Respondent. Therefore, to give opportunity to the Sole Respondent this Court adjourned the matter and directed Applicant to re-serve the Respondent. As per the office noting dated 27^th January, 2022 the Applicant was served and affidavit of service was filed.

¶15

5. Today when the matter was called out none appears for the Respondent. Although the Respondent is served no affidavit-in-

¶16

05-CAF-1944-2016.DOC

¶17

reply is filed, therefore, the contentions raised in Civil Application have remained uncontroverted.

¶18

6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) thereby condoning the delay in filing the First Appeal.

¶19

(Madhav J. Jamdar, J.)

Food Corporation of India v. Mantralaya Central Consumers Co-Oerative Wholesale and Regail Stores Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Food Corporation of India v. Mantralaya Central Consumers Co-Oerative Wholesale and Regail Stores Ltd.

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

The Union of India vs State of Maharashtra and 8 Ors.

Mrs. Phooldevi Rambaran Yadav Vs the New India Assurance Co.Ltd.

Executive Engineer, Karajvan Canal Division, Nashik Vs Shri Govind Shankar Bendkoli and Ors.

Mr. Mahesh Ashoodomal Meghnani Vs Mr. Shailesh Ajitmal Doshi

Executive Engineer, Nandur Madhyameshwar Project, Nashik Vs Rambhau Shankar Shirsat and Anr.

Executive Engineer, Nandur Madhyameshwar Project, Nashik Vs Rambhau Shankar Shirsat and Anr.