Allowed

Radheshyam Ramjeevan Laddha, through Poa Ajay Narayandasji Lahoti v. Union of India, through General Manager, C.S.T. Mumbai and 3 Others

Bombay HC22 Oct 2024CAO/1311/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for condonation of 3055 days' delay in filing restoration of a cross-objection dismissed by the Registrar. Delay condoned and the cross-objection restored subject to removal of office objections within three weeks, failing which deemed rejected.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 3055 days condoned; cross-objection St.No.5623/2014 restored subject to removal of office objections within three weeks.

Radheshyam Ramjeevan Laddha, through Poa Ajay… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:11957

¶2

1 19-CAO-1311-24.odt

¶3

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

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO. 1311 OF 2024

¶5

IN MCA ST. NO. 20286 OF 2024

¶6

¶7

CROSS-OBJECTION (XOB) ST. NO. 5623 OF 2014 (RC NO. 317/14)

¶8

¶9

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1282 OF 2013

¶10

RADHESHYAM RAMJEEVAN LADDHA THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY AJAY NARAYANDASJI LAHOTI

¶11

Vrs.

¶12

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

¶13

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶14

Shri P. S. Tembhare, Advocate for applicant/appellant. Ms. Neerja Chaubey, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri M.A.Kadu, AGP for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶15

CORAM: SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 22/10/2024.

¶16

Issue notice to the respondents.

¶17

Ms. Neerja Chaubey, learned advocate waives

¶18

service of notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶19

Shri M.A.Kadu, learned AGP waives service of notice for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶20

This is an application for condonation of delay of 3055 days caused for filing application for restoration of cross-objection which was dismissed by order dated 29/04/2014.

¶21

Perused the order passed by Registrar of this Court as well as consequential order passed by the Assistant Registrar.

¶22

2 19-CAO-1311-24.odt

¶23

Learned advocate for the applicant pointed out the grounds stated in the application.

¶24

Perused the application.

¶25

Heard learned Advocates for both sides.

¶26

Learned advocates for the respondents have strongly objected the application and submitted that delay is not properly explained. Therefore, they prayed to reject the application. Delay is not deliberately caused. The lis between the parties be decided on merit. Therefore, considering the reasons stated in the application, application deserves to be allowed, in the interest of justice.

¶27

The application is allowed. Delay of 3055 days caused for filing the application for restoration of cross-objection is condoned.

¶28

The application is disposed of.

¶29

MCA ST. NO. 20286 OF 2024

¶30

This is an application for restoration of cross-

¶31

objection.

¶32

Perused the application.

¶33

Heard learned Advocates for both sides.

¶34

Considering the reasons stated in the application, application deserves to be allowed, in the interest of justice.

¶35

The application is allowed.

¶36

Cross-objection St.No.5623/2014 is restored subject to removal of office objections within three weeks.

¶37

3 19-CAO-1311-24.odt

¶38

If the office objections are not removed within three weeks, application shall be deemed to be rejected. 19. Application is disposed of.

¶39

[SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶40

Choulwar

¶41

Signed by: V.M. Choulwar (VMC) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 23/10/2024 14:54:36

Radheshyam Ramjeevan Laddha, through Poa Ajay Narayandasji Lahoti v. Union of India, through General Manager, C.S.T. Mumbai and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radheshyam Ramjeevan Laddha, through Poa Ajay Narayandasji Lahoti v. Union of India, through General Manager, C.S.T. Mumbai and 3 Others

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

Shalikram S/O Tima Pardhi and Others Vs Manikrao Budhram Banpurkar (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Sau. Vimalbai Tatoba Fating and Others

Nandatai W/O Shankarrao Bhowate Vs Munindrakumar Namdeorao Vaidya and Others

Triveni Coal Corporation Through Premraj Premsukhdas Rathi Vs Gajanan Laxman Tayade

Radheshyam Ramjeevan Laddha, through Poa Ajay Narayandasji Lahoti vs Union of India, through General Manager, C.S.T. Mumbai and 3 Others

Narayandasji Jagannathi Lahoti vs Union of India, through General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and 3 Others

Maharashtra Elektrosmelt Ltd., Thr. Its Executive Director, Chandrapur vs Smt. Fulbai Wd/O Omprakash Nishad and Others