Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1099 Guj
Judgement Date : 9 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2980/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
2980 of 2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 12720 of 2025
=============================================
CHOLA MANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED VADODARA
Versus
SATISHBHAI HARISINGBHAI RATHVA & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 09/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Ms. Mausmi V. Nanavaty, learned Advocate on record for the applicant -Insurance Company. Issue rule returnable forthwith.
2. The learned Advocate at the outset has invited my attention to the averments made in the application. She has pointed out that the impugned Judgment and Award was pronounced on 14.11.2024 and the certified copy of same was applied on 21.11.2024. The certified copy was made available on 04.12.2024, which was collected by the learned Advocate on record for the applicant on 05.12.2024. She had, therefore, pointed out that the last date of preferring the First Appeal was on 15.03.2025, however the same was preferred on 26.03.2025. She has further submitted that the appropriate instructions were sought for from the Head Office for filing the appeal before this Court, which was communicated to the Advocate on record on 01.03.2025. Since the Advocate was engaged in the conciliation and settlement of the matters
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2980/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2025
undefined
before the Lok Adalat, the draft memo of appeal could be forwarded for approval on 18.03.2025. The approved memo of the appeal was thereafter received by the Advocate on record. However further time was consumed with regard to the receipt of requisite Court Fees to be deposited with the First Appeal. By referring to the aforesaid dates, the learned Advocate has further submitted that there was no gross inaction or negligence on part of the applicant to prefer the captioned appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. She has therefore urged this Court to condone the delay as the applicant Insurance Company has good case on merits.
3. Considering the aforesaid submission of learned Advocate for the applicant, in the opinion of this Court, sufficient cause is made out to consider their case for condonation of delay. Looking to the minimal number of days involved in preferring the captioned appeal, taking liberal view of the matter, the delay of 29 days caused in preferring the captioned appeal, deserves consideration. Hence, the present application seeking condonation of delay of 29 days caused in preferring the captioned appeal is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute. The present application stands allowed.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) Krupa Patel
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!