Allowed¶19

Thakur Electrical and Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,and Anr. v. Shantabai Ankush Pawar and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Apr 2025IA/13679/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 166 days' delay in filing First Appeal [St.] No. 20480 of 2024 before Bombay High Court condoned; ground: appellants unaware of judgment dated 11 September 2024 awarding compensation until demand by Respondent No. 6; unchallenged by any reply affidavit; application allowed despite respondents' opposition.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 166 days in preferring the Appeal; Interim Application allowed. ¶19

Why is it important?

Thakur Electrical and Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,and Anr. vs Shantabai Ankush Pawar and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

41 Ia-13679-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13679 OF 2024 IN

¶4

FIRST APPEAL [St.] NO. 20480 OF 2024

¶5

Thakur Electrical and Engineering Pvt. Ltd and Another. ...Appellants. Versus Shantabai Ankush Pawar and Others. ...Respondents.

¶6

Mr. Sumit Kothari i/b pradeep Salgar for the Appellant. Mr. Sachin B. Bhavsar i/b Harishchandra Kamble for Respondent No. 1 and 2. Ms. A. R. Baxi for the Respondent No. 4 and 6.

¶7

——————

¶8

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : April 29, 2025.

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

1. Interim Application has been preferred seeking condonation of delay of 166 days caused in preferring Appeal.

¶11

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that impugned judgment was passed on 11^th September 2024 directing compensation to be paid. He submits that Advocate of the Appellant had not informed the Appellant about the passing of impugned judgment and hence they were totally unaware of the same. He submits that they acquired knowledge of the impugned judgment on 21^st March 2024 when the Respondent No. 6 demanded the amount of

¶12

1 of 2

¶13

Patil-SR

¶14

41 Ia-13679-2024.doc

¶15

compensation. He submits that immediately steps were taken for filing Appeal, however, delay has been caused.

¶16

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 and 2 and learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4 and 6 oppose the Application and submit that there is no sufficient explanation for delay.

¶17

4. Perusal of the Application would indicate that specific plea has been taken in the Application that the Appellants were not aware of the passing of judgment and award and that knowledge of the same was acquired on 21^st March 2023. There is no reply affidavit filed disputing that position.

¶18

5. For the reasons stated, delay of 166 days stands condoned.

¶19

6. Interim Application is allowed.

¶20

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

¶21

2 of 2

¶22

Patil-SR

¶23

Signed by: Sachin R. Patil Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 30/04/2025 10:34:21

Thakur Electrical and Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,and Anr. v. Shantabai Ankush Pawar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

Thakur Electrical and Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,and Anr. v. Shantabai Ankush Pawar 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohun Nicholas Dsouza vs the Controllor of Petent of Design

Adarsh Medicals and Anr. vs Sunitaben Vikasbhai Bhungaliya Sole Proprietor Trading in the Name and Style of Mwb Herbal Life

Bisleri International Private Limited vs Ramesh Bilandrai Lalwani

Rajya General Kamdar MandaI vs The Official Liquidator For Mtz Polyfilms Limited

Marico Limited vs Morvin India Health Care Private Limited

Marico Limited vs Morvin India Health Care Private Limited