Sajiya Vahid Pathan Sajiya Rajmahmad Shaikh and Ors. Vs Arun Haribhau Mhaske and Ors.

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8737 OF 2025 IN FAST/15330/2025 (Withdrawal) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8747 OF 2025 IN FAST/15320/2025 (Withdrawal) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8763 OF 2025 IN FAST/15326/2025 (Withdrawal) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8765 OF 2025 IN FA/1499/2025 (Withdrawal) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8758 OF 2025 IN FAST/15071/2025 (Withdrawal) 1. All the First Appeals are arise out of different claims which arise

¶89

from a single accident. Vide separate appeals, the appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the respective judgments and awards in this Court. While seeking stay to the execution and operation of the judgments and awards impugned therein, the appellant/Insurance Company has deposited entire payable award amount in this Court together with accrued interest thereon. In this backdrop, present civil applications are filed by the applicants/claimants seeking permission to withdraw the deposited amount.

¶90

Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the entitlement of the applicants/claimants and the defence raised by the appellant/Insurance Company has been adjudicated by the learned Tribunal during trial and hence the compensation has been awarded and liability has been imposed upon the appellant/Insurance Company.

¶91

Ms. Rotte, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, strenuously contends that the learned Tribunal erred not only in fixing the liability but also in issuing absurd directions to the Insurance Company to pay compensation for a vehicle that was not even insured with it. Ms. Rotte further points out that the evidence on record, which remains undisputed, clearly

¶92

( 5 ) 946 CA 8737 OF 2025+

¶93

shows that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the insured vehicle. Nevertheless, the learned Tribunal imposed liability on the said insured vehicle. She has drawn my attention to the findings of the learned Tribunal, particularly Paragraph No. 22 of the judgment and award in M.A.C.P. No. 155 of 2021, which are common to all the matters. Ms. Rotte also refers to Clause No. 3 of the operative part of the impugned judgment and award. In light of these peculiar facts, Ms. Rotte submits that the Insurance Company opposes any withdrawal in all the matters.

¶94

Upon having heard the parties at length and upon going through the contents of the impugned judgment and award, I order that the applications for withdrawal to be considered together with the First Appeals at the time of final hearing.

¶95

5 List the civil applications for withdrawal with the respective First

¶96

Appeals.

¶97

Call Record and Proceedings in all the matters.

¶98

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6209 OF 2025 IN FAST/15330/2025 (16 days Delay) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6207 OF 2025 IN FAST/15320/2025 (17 days Delay) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6211 OF 2025 IN FAST/15326/2025 (3 days Delay) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6202 OF 2025 IN FAST/15071/2025 (3 days Delay)

¶99

These are the civil applications for condonation of delay in filing

¶100

the respective First Appeals.

¶101

Ms. Rotte, learned counsel for the applicant/insurance company,

¶102

( 6 ) 946 CA 8737 OF 2025+

¶103

submits that the delay is neither inordinate nor deliberate on the part of the applicant/insurance company. She further submits that the delay is well explained in the civil applications. She further submits that in any event the interests of the claimants are secured by the deposit of the entire award amount, together with interest accrued thereon, in this Court. In view thereof, she prays that the appeals be heard on their merits and delay be condoned.

¶104

Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel vehemently opposes the civil applications.

¶105

Having heard the parties, I find that the delay is satisfactorily explained by the insurance company in the civil applications. It appears that the delay is due to administrative exigencies.

¶106

In view of this, I pass the following order :-

¶107

ORDER

¶108

a. Civil Applications are allowed.

¶109

b. Delay caused in filing the respective First Appeals is hereby condoned.

¶110

c. Registry to register the First Appeals, subject to removal of office objections within four weeks from today.

¶111

FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 15330 OF 2025 FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 15320 OF 2025 FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 15326 OF 2025 FIRST APPEAL NO.1499 OF 2025 FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 15071 OF 2025

¶112

( 7 ) 946 CA 8737 OF 2025+

¶113

Heard.

¶114

Admit .

¶115

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 07.11.2025. Mr.

¶116

Shaikh, learned counsel waives service of notice for respective respondents.

¶117

The matter be listed after service of notice is complete. In the meantime, applicant/appellant shall take recourse to the provisions enumerated in Chapter II of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, corresponding to the stage and requirement of matter.

¶118

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6210 OF 2025 IN FAST/15330/2025 (Stay) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6208 OF 2025 IN FAST/15320/2025 (Stay) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6212 OF 2025 IN FAST/15326/2025 (Stay) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6233 OF 2025 IN FA/1499/2025 (Stay) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6204 OF 2025 IN FAST/15071/2025 (Stay)

¶119

In view of the fact that the appellant/Insurance Company has

¶120

deposited entire award amount in this Court, stay granted earlier is made absolute.

¶121

Civil Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause “B”.

¶122

Civil Applications stand disposed of.

¶123

[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]

¶124

PRW

Sajiya Vahid Pathan Sajiya Rajmahmad Shaikh and Ors. v. Arun Haribhau Mhaske and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajiya Vahid Pathan Sajiya Rajmahmad Shaikh and Ors. v. Arun Haribhau Mhaske and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The Ex. Engineer, Osmanabad Medi. Proj. Div. and Ors. Vs Ashru Udhav Kate and Anr.

The Ex. Engineer, Osmanabad Medi. Proj. Div. and Ors. Vs Brahamadeo Dnyanoba Todakar

The Ex. Engineer, Osmanabad Medi. Proj. Div. and Ors. Vs Balharinath Paithan Pagar

Sk. Ahmed Sk. Hyder Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Divisional Manager, Nanded

Sk. Kalim Hussain Sab Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Divisional Manager, Nanded and Ors.

Manager the New India Assurance Company Lted Vs Pooja Mahadeo More and Others