The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Shri. Satyadev Yadvendra Singh ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7076 Bom

                                                           1/2           4-caf-3962-2015 in fast-23056-2015.doc



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3962 OF 2015
                                                        IN
                                        FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 23056 OF 2015

                     The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.                      ...Applicant
                                  Vs.
                     Mr. Satyadev Yadvendra Singh & Anr.                   ...Respondents
                                                          .....

                     Mr. D. S. Joshi, for the Applicant / Appellant.

        Digitally
                     Mr. T. J. Mendon, for the Respondent No.1.
        signed by
        MAMTA
MAMTA
AMAR
        AMAR
        KALE                                              .....
KALE    Date:
        2022.07.22
        13:10:17

                                             CORAM : SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.
        +0530




                                              DATE : 22 JULY, 2022

                     P.C.

                     .            It is an application for condonation of delay moved by the
                     Applicant / the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.


                     2.           Heard Mr. D. S. Joshi, learned counsel for the Applicant /
                     Appellant and Mr. T. J. Mendon, learned counsel for the
                     Respondent No.1. The application came to be dismissed against
                     Respondent No.2.




                     Mamta Kale
                                          2/2           4-caf-3962-2015 in fast-23056-2015.doc



3.           It is submitted by Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the
Applicant that the impugned judgment is challenged to the
extent of quantum and as such, Respondent No.2 may not be
necessary party.


4.           There seems to be delay of 233 days in preferring the
appeal. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation
of delay in para Nos.4 to 7 and in the interest of justice, it is
necessary to condone the delay.
                                     ORDER

(i) The application for condonation of delay is hereby allowed in terms of prayer clause 9(a).

(ii) The Registry is directed to make scrutiny of the appeal as per procedure and thereafter, it be numbered and placed before the concerned Court for admission.

(iii) The civil application is accordingly disposed of.

(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.)

Mamta Kale