Punjab National Bank vs The Board Of Trustees Of Port Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 13395 Bom

                                                      1         24-CAF 4043-16 in FAST 18249-16.odt


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4043 OF 2016
                                                   IN
                                    FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.18249 OF 2016

                      Punjab National Bank                                    ... Applicant
                            Vs.
                      The Board of Trustees of the
                      Port of Mumbai & Ors.                                   ... Respondents
                                                      -----

Ms. Rajlaxmi Punjabi i/by Mable & Associates for applicant. Mr. Siddharth Chhabriya, counsel a/w Ms. Arundhati Korale i/by Motiwalla & Co. for respondents.

-----

CORAM: ABHAY AHUJA J.

DATE : 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2021

P.C.:

1. Heard. Learned counsel for applicant submits that there

is a delay of 184 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment

and award dated 30th November, 2015 passed by the City Civil Court

at Mumbai in S.C. Suit No.3220 of 2010.

2. Learned counsel draws the attention of this court to

paragraph 2 of the application to explain suffcient cause. She

submits that although the judgment was passed on 30 th November,

MUGDHA M 2015, the then advocate for applicant, viz., original defendant No.2 PARANJAPE Digitally signed by MUGDHA M PARANJAPE Date: 2021.09.21 12:21:20 +0530

Mugdha 1 of 3 2 24-CAF 4043-16 in FAST 18249-16.odt

had returned the brief around February, 2016 as he had left his

practice and migrated to South. She submits that thereafter

applicant lost track of the matter as there were several other

matters to be handled and thereafter the applicant's offcer after

taking legal advice and the necessary approvals took time in fling

of the appeal belatedly by 184 days.

3. Respondent No.1 has fled an affdavit in reply opposing

the said application. He submits that the delay in fling the appeal

cannot be condoned as the respondent No.1 acquired a vested right

due to the delay. He draws the attention of this Court to paragraphs

1, 4(b), 4(c), 4(d) and 4(e) of his reply in support of his case.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also with

their able assistance perused the application as well as the reply.

5. It is observed from the application that the judgment

and order was passed on 30th November, 2015 and it is only in the

middle of February, 2016 that the earlier advocate returned the

briefs as he had left his practice and thereafter the applicant Bank

lost its track and subsequently pursuant to legal advice, the appeal

Mugdha 2 of 3 3 24-CAF 4043-16 in FAST 18249-16.odt

came to be fled.

6. It is settled law that delay caused on account of the act

or omission of counsel should not affect the rights of the parties. In

this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that there is

suffcient cause in condoning the delay of 184 days. The delay is

accordingly condoned.

7. Civil Application accordingly stands disposed of.

8. List the appeal as well as the application for stay for

hearing on 20/10/2021.

                                               (ABHAY AHUJA, J.)




 Mugdha                                                                3 of 3