Allowed¶15

Yashoda Balraj Gaud (Died) Thr Lrs. Dindayal Balraj Gaud v. Nabi Gulabsab Motole and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Sept 2025CA/2959/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Kishore C. Sant, J.), order dated 22.09.2025 in Civil Application No. 2959 of 2012 in FAST/4700/2012: condonation of 2791-day delay in first appeal against MACT Nilanga award dated 25.03.2004 in MACP No. 36 of 2002; conditional forfeiture of interest from 2004 upon enhancement of compensation; advocates S.G. Rudrawar (applicant), S.R. Bodade (respondent No.3), Sudhir K. Chavan (respondent Nos. 4 and 5).

What did the court decide?

Delay of 2791 days in filing the first appeal condoned; First Appeal to be registered; applicant to forgo interest from 2004 till date in case compensation is enhanced; notice issued returnable on 03.11.2025. ¶15

Yashoda Balraj Gaud (Died) Thr Lrs. Dindayal Balraj Gaud Vs Nabi Gulabsab Motole and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:25972

¶2

( 1 ) ca2959.12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

12 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2959 OF 2012 IN FAST/4700/2012

¶5

YASHODA BALRAJ GAUD (DIED) THR LRS. DINDAYAL BALRAJ GAUD VERSUS

¶6

NABI GULABSAB MOTOLE AND ORS

¶7

Mr.S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.S.R. Bodade, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr.Sudhir K. Chavan, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶8

CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATE : 22.09.2025

¶9

PC :-

¶10

CIVIL APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY

¶11

Heard learned Advocates for the parties. This application is for condonation of delay of 2791 days caused in filing the appeal challenging judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nilanga dated 25.03.2004 in MACP No. 36 of 2002.

¶12

Learned Advocate for the applicant vehemently argued that the delay is unintentional. Learned Tribunal has not granted adequate compensation to the applicant-claimant and therefore the claimant approached this Court. The claimant was a lady not much aware of her rights. Now the claimant is also dead and her heir is brought on record. He thus submits that the applicant is also old aged person. He, therefore, prays for condonation of delay.

¶13

Learned Advocate Mr. Bodade strenuously opposes the application. He has already filed reply. He submits that there is no sufficient explanation of the delay. The delay is about eight years. He submits that the application deserves to be dismissed.

¶14

Since this application is by original claimant (now deceased), this Court is inclined to allow this application, however, on condition that the applicant shall not be entitled to receive interest for the period from 2004 till today, in case the amount of compensation is enhanced.

¶15

Accordingly, this Civil Application is allowed. The delay is condoned. The First Appeal be registered.

¶16

FIRST APPEAL

¶17

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 03.11.2025. Learned Advocate Mr. Bodade waives service of notice for respondent No.3 and learned Advocte Mr. S.K. Chavan waives service of notice for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶18

[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

¶19

snk/2025/Sep25/ca2959.12

Yashoda Balraj Gaud (Died) Thr Lrs. Dindayal Balraj Gaud v. Nabi Gulabsab Motole and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashoda Balraj Gaud (Died) Thr Lrs. Dindayal Balraj Gaud v. Nabi Gulabsab Motole and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandhyaben Ishwarlal Parekh. Vs Santosh Onkar Bagale and Others.

Shaikh Abdul Sattar Hasanbhai. Vs Bismillahbee Wazir Shaikh.

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Kokilabai Pralhad Patil

Shrirampur Municipal Council Emp.Co.Op Society Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Vaishnavi Lakhna Kadewar Vs Lakhan Kailas Kadewar

Gangadhar Virprakashappa Swami(Mathwale) Vs Mazuroddin Moinuddin and Anr.