Gujarat High Court
Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. ... vs Vanand Gunvantbhai Bhikhabhai on 9 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2872/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
2872 of 2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 12706 of 2025
=============================================
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
VANAND GUNVANTBHAI BHIKHABHAI & 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. Masumui Nanavaty, learned Advocate on
record for the applicant. Issue rule returnable forthwith.
2. Looking at the numbers of days of delay involved in
filing the captioned appeal, the present application is
taken up for final hearing in absence of the respondent.
At the outset, learned Advocate for the applicant has
invited my attention to the averments made in the
present application and has submitted that the judgment
and award was pronounced on 30.09.2024, however the
Award was actually drawn on 11.10.2024. The learned
advocate on record for the applicant Insurance Company
had applied for certified copy on 11.10.2024 which was
made available on 25.11.2024. She has further pointed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2872/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2025
undefined
out that the certified copy was forwarded to the
concerned office of the applicant company, whereby, the
head office of the applicant after seeking necessary
clarification and upon examination of the documents, had
formed an opinion to approach in appeal. According to
the applicant, the Tribunal had committed serious error
in misreading the driving licence of opponent no.1
produced on record at Exhibit-18. She has further pointed
out that the necessary papers were forwarded to the
Advocate on record for the applicant -Insurance
Company. Further time was consumed in receipt of the
requisite Court fees. In the process, the delay of 68 days
has crept in preferring the appeal. She has therefore,
submitted that there was no gross negligence or willful
inaction on the part of the applicant Insurance Company,
however, because of the process involved, the delay had
crept in. She had therefore urged this Court to take
liberal view and to the condoned the delay caused in
preferring the captioned appeal.
3. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the
learned Advocate for the applicant and in light of the
averments made in application, this Court is of the view
that all throughout the applicant Insurance Company was
in process of approaching this Court in appeal. There was
no gross negligence or willful inaction, however, because
of process involved, the delay of 68 days has crept in.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2872/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2025
undefined
Considering the aforesaid explanation offered, this Court
is of the view that sufficient cause is made out to
condone the delay caused in preferring the appeal.
Hence, the present application seeking condonation of
the delay of 68 days is hereby allowed. Present
application stands disposed of accordingly.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
Krupa Patel
