Allowed

Mr. Shaikh Mahemood S/O Sheikh Hakimaji and Others v. Union of India, Thr. the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai

Bombay HC6 May 2024CAF/1327/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Nagpur condoned a 1905-day delay in filing an appeal against a Tribunal order rejecting a claim for compensation. The application was allowed subject to costs of Rs. 1000 payable to Vidarbha Lady Lawyers Association, and the appeal was registered for disposal.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed; costs of Rs. 1000 payable to Vidarbha Lady Lawyer's Association; appeal registered.

Mr. Shaikh Mahemood S/O Sheikh Hakimaji and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:5344

¶2

1 6.caf.1327.2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAF) NO. 1327 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 6956 OF 2024 Mr Shaikh Mahemood S/o. Sheikh Hakimji and others .VS.

¶5

Union of India

¶6

_______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

¶7

Mr R. G. Bagul, Advocate for the appellants Ms Neerja Chaubey, Advocate for respondent

¶8

CORAM : G.A. SANAP, J. DATE : MAY 06, 2024.

¶9

Heard learned Advocate for the appellants and the learned Advocate for the respondent/non-applicant. Perused the record and proceedings.

¶10

This is an application for condonation of 1905 days caused in filing the appeal. The reasons have been stated in the application for delay in filing the appeal against the impugned judgment and order. It is seen that the reasons are mostly attributable to the Advocate representing the appellants. The claim for compensation filed by the appellants was under beneficial piece of legislation. There was a delay in filing the claim. The application for condonation of delay made by the

¶11

2 6.caf.1327.2024

¶12

appellants/claimants was rejected by the Tribunal. Against said order the appeal has been filed.

¶13

On going through the record and proceedings and more particularly the reasons stated in he application, I am of the opinion that the appellants deserve a chance. The adjudication of their grievance, on merits, in my view, would be necessary to serve the cause of justice.

¶14

Accordingly, the application is allowed subject to costs of Rs.1000/- (Rs. One thousand only). Costs be paid to Vidarbha Lady Lawyer’s Association, Nagpur.

¶15

Delay of 1905 days caused in filing the appeal stands condoned.

¶16

Appeal be registered.

¶17

F IRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 6956 OF 2024

¶18

Learned Advocate Ms Neerja Chaubey waives service of notice on behalf of respondent.

¶19

Call for record and proceedings.

¶20

(G. A. SANAP, J.)

¶21

Namrata

Mr. Shaikh Mahemood S/O Sheikh Hakimaji and Others v. Union of India, Thr. the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Shaikh Mahemood S/O Sheikh Hakimaji and Others v. Union of India, Thr. the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai

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

Shri. Shekher Vinayakrao Bhuyar vs the State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Amravati and Others

Shri. Prabhakar Shankarrao Patil and Other vs the State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Amravati and Others

Sau.Suvarna Rahul Bhokare vs Rahul S/O Shivaji Bhokare

Prabhakar Pandurang Khadse and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Yavatmal and Others

Executive Engineer, Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Nagpur vs Suraj Subhashrao Bhagat and Others

Rahul S/O Arun Rahate vs Ankita W/O Rahul Rahate