Allowed¶12

NHAI v. Keshav Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Oct 2024OMPM/94/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 153 days; NHAI vs Keshav Kumar & Ors.; OMP(M) No. 94/2024; Arb. Appeal No.______/2024; judgment of learned District Judge dated 04.09.2023; certified copy delivered 07.10.2023; awareness of disposal 21.03.2024; M/s M.V. Kini & Co.; 362 cases District Mandi; State of H.P.; Jyotsna Rewal Dua; decision 16.10.2024; appeal to be registered.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 153 days' delay in instituting the main appeal; the application stands disposed of; the main appeal (Arb. Appeal No.______/2024) is ordered to be registered and listed for consideration the following week. ¶12

NHAI Vs Keshav Kumar — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

NHAI Vs. Keshav Kumar & Ors.

¶2

OMP(M) No. 94/2024

¶3

16.10.2024 Present: Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant.

¶4

Mr. Yutyutsu Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶5

Mr. Yutyutsu Singh Thakur, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.

¶6

Applicant/appellant seeks condonation of 153 days’ delay in instituting the main appeal.

¶7

The applicant has pleaded that the impugned judgment was pronounced by the learned District Judge on 04.09.2023. Its certified copy was applied on 06.09.2023. The same was attested on 30.09.2023 and was delivered on 07.10.2023. However, disposal of the case on 04.09.2023 was not within the knowledge of the applicant as the same was never intimated to it by its counsel.

¶8

The application is with the further averments that the applicant became aware on 21.03.2024 about the disposal of the main case on 04.09.2023. On account of closing of the financial year, the empaneled counsel for the applicant throughout the State of H.P. were directed to furnish the information of the pendency or otherwise of the cases of the appellant. That it is only thereafter the applicant came to know about the fact that the instance case had been disposed

¶9

of on 04.09.2023. However, this fact was not brought to the notice of the applicant by its counsel.

¶10

The applicant further submits that due to such inefficient and lackadaisical attitude of the said law firm/counsel, M/s M.V. Kini & Co., 362 cases pending in District Mandi have been withdrawn and had been allotted to some other firm.

¶11

The reasons for the delay in filing the appeal have been attributed upon having no information about disposal of the case from the counsel conducting the said case. The applicant has demonstrated its bonafide by pleading that it has already withdrawn its cases from the law firm conducting the aforesaid cases.

¶12

Even otherwise, there is no opposition to the prayer made in the application. For the cogent reasons given and established in the application, the delay in filing the main appeal is condoned. The application to stand disposed of.

¶13

Arb. Appeal No.______/2024

¶14