Allowed

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited Thr.the Manager v. Smt.Snehal Manoj Patil and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Aug 2023IA/14248/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This interim application sought restoration of a first appeal dismissed for non-compliance regarding the paper-book. The Court condoned the delay and restored the appeal, directing payment of court library dues.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of First Appeal NO. 860 of 2019 and direction to pay Rs. 25,000 to Kirtikar Law Library within three weeks.

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited Thr.the Manager Vs… — Insurance | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

KVM

¶2

1/3

¶3

34 - IA 14248 OF 2023.doc

¶4

KANCHAN Digitally signed byKANCHAN VINOD VINOD MAYEKAR MAYEKAR Date: 2023.08.2111:32:00 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 14248 OF 2023 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 860 OF 2019

¶6

The Manager, Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited

¶7

….. Applicant/ Appellant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Smt.Snehal Manoj Patil & Ors.

¶10

….. Respondents

¶11

Mr.Rahul Mehta i/b. KMC Legal Venture for the Appellant/Applicant in IA/14248/2023.

¶12

Ms. Kiran Yadav i/b. Mr.A.M.Gokhale for the Applicant in IA/1971/2023 and IA/1972/2023 and for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in FA.

¶13

CORAM: ABHAY AHUJA, J.

¶14

DATE : 17^th AUGUST, 2023

¶15

P.C:-

¶16

This is an application seeking restoration of the First Appeal

¶17

which was dismissed for non compliance of the order dated 22^nd

¶18

October, 2019 for failure to file paper-book in the time granted.

¶19

Mr.Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant insurance company

¶20

would submit that there has been delay of 2 years and 214 days.

¶21

2/3

¶22

KVM

¶23

34 - IA 14248 OF 2023.doc

¶24

Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to paragraph (3) of the application to explain the delay as well as the failure to file the paper-book. Learned counsel would submit that the paper-book could not be filed as the erstwhile legal team of the applicant inadvertently failed to inform the Trial Court advocate.

¶25

Ms.Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 claimant has no particular objection if the delay is condoned and if the appeal is restored more particularly as the respondents are also seeking to restore their Cross Objection (St) No. 19378 of 2018 which has been dismissed due to non compliance of the conditional order dated 22^nd October, 2019. The service to the respondent no.6 has been dispensed with vide order dated 21^st June, 2019.

¶26

Having heard learned counsel and having perused the application, this Court is of the view that the delay of 2 years and 214 days in preferring the application for restoration be condoned and the appeal be restored to file subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to Kirtikar Law Library, High Court, Bombay within a period of three weeks.

¶27

KVM

¶28

3/3

¶29

34 - IA 14248 OF 2023.doc

¶30

Application is accordingly disposed off.

¶31

[ABHAY AHUJA, J.]

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited Thr.the Manager v. Smt.Snehal Manoj Patil and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited Thr.the Manager v. Smt.Snehal Manoj Patil 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

Haree Parbath Sozni and Stapple Emp. Industrial Co. Op Ltd. Thru Its Secretary Vs the Colaba Central Co. Op Consumers Wholesale and Retail Store Ltd. and Anr.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Salma Khatoon Washi Ahemad Khan and Ors.

Chief Fir Officer through Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Mumbai Vs Anju Shivkumar Vishwakarma and Ors.

Lakshmi Fabrics vs Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction b i f r

Smt.Snehal Manoj Patil and Ors. Vs the Manager, Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai and Anr.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mr Rama Hiraman Gaikwad...