Allowed

Paresh Pralhad Surve v. M.S Shirish and Company Represented by Its Partner

Bombay HC12 Jul 2024CA/5103/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court condoned a 67-day delay as neither inordinate nor deliberate, citing Supreme Court precedents. It registered review applications and allowed rival parties to intervene in a pending review by being arrayed as respondents.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of a 67-day delay; intervention applications allowed with applicants arrayed as respondents in Review App. No. 64/2024.

Paresh Pralhad Surve Vs M.S Shirish and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:14527-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6838 OF 2024 IN RAST/18585/2024

¶4

AVINASH RAMDAS NANDEDKAR

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

M/S SHIRISH AND COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SHIRISH DALICHAND OSWAL AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr. A. D. Shinde, Advocate for the for Applicant

¶8

Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. R. M. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶9

Mr. P. N. Kutti, Advocate for Applicant/Intervenor

¶10

WITH

¶11

REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 64 OF 2024 IN WP/3416/2024

¶12

M.S SHIRISH AND COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER VERSUS

¶13

CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, H.P. CORPORATION AND ORS

¶14

Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. R. M. Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant

¶15

WITH

¶16

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4607 OF 2024 IN RA/64/2024

¶17

M.S SHIRISH AND COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER VERSUS

¶18

CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, H.P. CORPORATION AND ORS

¶19

Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. R. M. Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant

¶20

WITH

¶21

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5103 OF 2024 IN RA/64/2024

¶22

1 of 4

¶23

902.ca6838.24.odt

¶24

PARESH PRALHAD SURVE VERSUS

¶25

M.S SHIRISH AND COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER

¶26

Mr. P. N. Kutti, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. R. M. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶27

WITH

¶28

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5101 OF 2024 IN RA/64/2024

¶29

AVINASH RAMDAS NANDEDKAR VERSUS

¶30

M.S SHIRISH AND COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER

¶31

Mr. A. D. Shinde, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. R. M. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶32

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND R. M. JOSHI, JJ.

¶33

DATE : 12^th JULY, 2024

¶34

PER COURT :-

¶35

ORDER BELOW CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6838 OF 2024

¶36

Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides. The respondent opposed the condonation of 67 days delay.

¶37

Considering that the delay is neither inordinate nor deliberate and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Reghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649 , the delay of 67 days deserves to be

2 of 4

902.ca6838.24.odt

condoned.

3. The Civil Application to the extent of condonation of delay is allowed. Delay is condoned.

¶42

Since both the sides have filed Review Applications, the present Review Application be registered and be listed along with Review Application No. 64 of 2024 on 26^th July, 2024.

¶43

ORDER BELOW CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4607 OF 2024

¶44

We have heard learned Advocates for the respective sides. The Applicant desires to place documents on record.

¶45

6. The non-Applicants opposed.

¶46

Considering the reasons assigned, the Civil Application is allowed . The documents be brought on record with proper pagination in continuation.

¶47

ORDER BELOW CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 5103 of 2024 AND 5101 OF 2024

¶48

The rival parties have filed these applications for seeking intervention in Review Application No. 64 of 2024. In view of the same, both these intervention applications are allowed . The Applicants be arrayed as Respondents in Review Application No. 64 of 2024.

¶49

3 of 4

¶50

902.ca6838.24.odt

¶51