Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION LATUR NOW LATUR M I D L AND ORSversusSANTOSH PRABHU KORE

Disposal
Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Holding

The court condoned the 299‑day delay and granted an ad‑interim stay subject to deposit of 60% of the compensation with interest.

Summary

The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division Latur filed multiple civil applications seeking to condone a 299‑day delay in filing an appeal against a judgment and award. The delay was attributed to administrative reasons, which the court found to be satisfactorily explained. The court therefore allowed the condonation applications, directing that the first appeals be registered subject to removal of any office objections. In the stay applications, the court issued notice to the respondents but the respondent’s counsel waived it, and an ad‑interim stay of the judgment and award was granted on the condition that the applicants deposit 60% of the compensation amount with interest. The stay will remain in force until the returnable date, twelve weeks from the order.

Issues considered

  • Whether a delay of 299 days in filing an appeal can be condoned on account of administrative reasons
  • Whether an ad‑interim stay of the judgment and award should be granted pending the appeal

Subjects

  • condonation of delay
  • civil appeal
  • stay of execution
  • administrative delay
  • compensation

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:34264
                                                                             972-ca-12959-2025.odt
                                                      (1)


                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12959 OF 2025
                                          IN FAST/25925/2025
                 The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division Latur Now Latur M I
                                            D L And Ors
                                              VERSUS
                                         Meena Prabhu Kore
                                                  ...
                       Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Baburao Raosaheb Survase
                          Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Tembhurnikar C.S.
                                             WITH
                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12952 OF 2025 IN FAST/25932/2025 WITH
                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12953 OF 2025 IN FAST/25935/2025 WITH
                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12954 OF 2025 IN FAST/25935/2025 WITH
                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12947 OF 2025 IN FAST/25928/2025 WITH
                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12948 OF 2025 IN FAST/25928/2025 WITH
                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12946 OF 2025 IN FAST/25914/2025 WITH
                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12949 OF 2025 IN FAST/25917/2025 WITH
                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12950 OF 2025 IN FAST/25917/2025 WITH
                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12955 OF 2025 IN FAST/25938/2025 WITH
                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12956 OF 2025 IN FAST/25938/2025 WITH
                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12958 OF 2025 IN FAST/25920/2025 WITH
                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12945 OF 2025 IN FAST/25914/2025 WITH
                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12960 OF 2025 IN FAST/25925/2025 WITH
                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12957 OF 2025 IN FAST/25920/2025 WITH
                    CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12951 OF 2025 IN FAST/25932/2025
                                                ...
                                          CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                                 DATED : AUGUST 06, 2026

                 PER COURT :-
                 In Delay Applications :

                 1.           Heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties.

                 2.           The applicants seek to condone delay of 299 days caused

                 in filing appeal.

                 3.           Perused      applications     and   reasons   stated    therein.

                 Apparently, delay is caused on account of administrative reasons
                                                         972-ca-12959-2025.odt
                                    (2)


which are duly explained. As such, sufficient cause is made out to

condone delay.

4.           Hence, applications are allowed. Delay of 299 days

caused in filing appeal stands condoned. First Appeals be registered

subject to removal of office objections, if any.

In Stay Applications :

1.           Heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties.

2.           Issue notice to respondents, returnable after twelve

weeks. Mr. Tembhurnikar waives notice for respondent.

3.           Till returnable date, there shall be ad-interim stay to

judgment and award under appeal subject to condition that applicants

deposit 60% of compensation amount along with interest accrued

thereon.




                                          (S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)




Mujaheed//


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.