Sai Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd vs The Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 13393 Bom

                                                     1          8-CAF 1972-16 in FAST 4337-16.odt


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1972 OF 2016
                                                    IN
                                    FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.4337 OF 2016

                      Sai Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd.                         ... Applicant
                      In the matter between :-
                      Sai Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd.                         ... Appellant
                            Vs.
                      The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai
                      & Ors.                                             ... Respondents
                                                      -----

Ms. Apurva Pohonerkar (Mehta) for applicant. Mr. Siddharth Chhabriya, Counsel a/w Ms. Arundhati Korale i/by Motiwalla & Co. for respondent No.1. Ms. Rajlaxmi Punjabi i/by Mable & Associates for respondent No.3.

-----

CORAM: ABHAY AHUJA J.

DATE : 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2021 P.C.:

1. Heard. Learned counsel for applicant submits that there

is a delay of six days in preferring the appeal against the judgment

and decree dated 30th November, 2015 passed by the Bombay City

Civil Court in Suit No.3220 of 2010.

2. Learned counsel for applicant draws attention of this

court to paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the application to explain the

MUGDHA M delay. It is submitted that the appeal pleadings are required to be PARANJAPE Digitally signed by MUGDHA M PARANJAPE Date: 2021.09.21 12:21:18 +0530

Mugdha 1 of 2 2 8-CAF 1972-16 in FAST 4337-16.odt

approved at various levels of managements and, therefore, it took

time to fnalise the appeal causing the delay of six days.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 raises formal

objection.

4. The record shows that respondent No.2 has been served,

but the packets had been returned 'unserved'. It appears that

respondent No.2 is not interested in opposing this civil application.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits to the

orders of this court.

6. Having hearing learned counsel for the parties and

having perused the reasons for the delay, this court is of the view

that suffcient cause has been shown for condoning the delay in the

matter. The delay of six days is accordingly condoned.

7. Civil Application is disposed of.

8. List the frst appeal for admission alongwith stay

application on 19/10/2021.

                                                    (ABHAY AHUJA, J.)



 Mugdha                                                                      2 of 2