M/S. Future Generali Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Its Manager vs Smt. Rekha Manoj Kumar Gaud and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

M/S. Future Generali Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Its Manager vs Smt. Rekha Manoj Kumar Gaud and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 435 days in filing the appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 should be condoned, i.e., whether any substantial or sufficient cause for the delay exists. +1 more

Court's answer

No substantial cause exists: there is no explanation why no application for certified copy was made within reasonable time after the impugned order of 16 November 2019 (the certified copy being received only on 23 February 2021), and hence in the absence of any explanation from 16 November 2019 till 23 March 2021 there does not exist any substantial cause.

Ratio / Principle

The Covid-pandemic ground fails: the Supreme Court's extension of limitation applied only where limitation expired after 20 March 2020, whereas here limitation had expired much before that date, as settled in Delhi Development Authority vs. Tejpal & Ors.; therefore the reason of Covid cannot be accepted.

Key takeaways

The plea of administrative hurdles is a general reason without any supporting material and cannot be accepted; the applicant being a private sector insurance company, such reasons are rejected by this Court even in the case of public sector insurance companies.ratio¶18
Applying the ratio of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., which squarely applies to the facts, in the absence of any sufficient cause being shown the delay of 435 days cannot be condoned.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay — Appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 — Delay of 435 days (impugned order dated 16 November 2019; limitation expired 16 January 2020; appeal filed 26 March 2021) — Covid-19 extension of limitation (20 March 2020 to 28 February 2022) inapplicable, as limitation had expired much before 20 March 2020, as settled in Delhi Development Authority vs. Tejpal & Ors., (2024) 7 SCC 433 — No explanation for not applying for certified copy within reasonable time after the impugned order, certified copy received 23 February 2021; hence no substantial cause — Plea of administrative hurdles a general, unsupported plea, rejected even in the case of public sector insurance companies — Ratio of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, squarely applied: no sufficient cause shown, delay cannot be condoned — Interim Application dismissed; consequently First Appeal (St) No.8291 of 2021 also dismissed (Jitendra Jain, J.).

29-IA.10863.2024.doc

2026:BHC-AS:14605

Sayyed

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.10863 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.8291 OF 2021 WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.8291 OF 2021

M/s. Future Generali Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Manager ...Applicant/Appellant Versus Rekha Manoj Kumar Gaud & Ors. ...Respondents

Mr. Rajesh Kanojia a/w Ms. Gargi Mandvikar for Applicant/Appellant. None for the Respondents.

CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J. DATE : 26 MARCH 2026

P.C.:

This application is filed by the insurance company for condoning delay of 435 days in filing an appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923.

The impugned order is dated 16 November 2019. As per Section 30, appeal had to be filed within 60 days i.e. on or before 16 January 2020. The appeal has been filed on 26 March 2021. Therefore, there is a delay of 1 year and 70 days i.e. 435 days.

In the interim application, one of the reason given for the delay is on account of Covid Pandemic. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an order extending the time limit from 20 March 2020 till 28 February 2022. However, this decision was made applicable to those matters where the limitation expired after 20 March 2020. In this case,

1 of 2

Sayyed

29-IA.10863.2024.doc

the limitation had expired much before 20 March 2020. Therefore, the reason of Covid cannot be accepted. This has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Tejpal & Ors.¹ .

The second reason given is that the application for certified copy was submitted and the certified copy was received on 23 February 2021. There is no explanation as to after the impugned order was passed on 16 November 2019, why no application for certified copy was made within reasonable time. Therefore, in the absence of any explanation from 16 November 2019 till 23 March 2021, there does not exist any substantial cause.

The other reason given is on account of administrative hurdles. This is a general reason given without any supporting. The applicant is a private sector insurance company and such reasons are rejected by this Court even in case of public sector insurance company. Therefore, the reasons on account of administrative hurdles cannot be accepted.

The issue of substantial cause has been recently explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors.² . In my view, the ratio of this decision squarely applies to the facts of the case, and in the absence of any sufficient cause being shown, delay cannot be condoned.

Interim Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, First Appeal (St) No.8291 of 2021 also stands dismissed.

[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]

1 (2024) 7 SCC 433.

2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969

Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 26/03/2026 18:32:45

2 of 2