Bombay High Court
SHAIKH MUKTHAR AHMED NOOR AHMED @ NOOR MOHAMMAD.versusSHAIKH ALEEM S/O SHAIKH KAREEM AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- Y G KHOBRAGADE
Holding
The Court rejected the application for condonation of delay, holding that the applicant’s financial difficulties did not constitute a substantial ground to excuse a 5,391‑day delay.
Summary
The applicant, Shaikh Mukthar Ahmed Noor Mohammad, filed an application seeking condonation of a 5,391‑day delay in filing an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation/Employee’s Compensation Act against a 2010 judgment and award. He argued that poverty, loss of his truck‑driving job and permanent disability prevented timely filing. The Court noted that the insurance company (non‑applicant No. 2) had already filed an appeal, deposited the awarded amount, and that the applicant had even withdrawn part of that amount. Relying on Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court held that financial hardship alone does not constitute a bona‑fide and substantial ground to condone such an extensive delay, especially when the opposite party is already litigating the matter. Consequently, the application for condonation was rejected and the first appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of more than 14 years in filing an appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
- Whether financial hardship and loss of employment constitute a bona‑fide and substantial ground for condonation of delay.
Legislation cited
- Employee’s Compensation Act — s. 30
- Limitation Act — s. 5
- Workmen's Compensation Act — s. 30
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- limitation
- employee compensation
- workmen's compensation
- appeal
- financial hardship
- insurance company
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:10404
22-FA-1411-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
22 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1411 OF 2026
IN FAST/36784/2025
SHAIKH MUKTHAR AHMED NOOR AHMED @ NOOR
MOHAMMAD.
VERSUS
SHAIKH ALEEM S/O SHAIKH KAREEM AND ANOTHER
.…
Mr. Syed Rahmet Ali Ahmed Ali, Advocate for the Applicant
.…
CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
DATE : March 09, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant at length.
2. By the present application, the applicant prays for
condonation of delay of 5391 days caused while lodging the
appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act /
Employee’s Compensation Act, challenging the judgment and
award dated 24.12.2010, passed by the learned Commissioner
under the Employee’s Compensation Act in Application W.C.A.
No.2 of 2010.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant
canvassed that the applicant could not file an appeal for
1 of 2
(( 2 )) 22-FA-1411-2026
enhancement of compensation due to poverty and financial
difficulties, as the applicant lost his job as a truck driver and suffered
permanent disability. Therefore, a delay of 5391 days, i.e., more than
14 years, is caused. However, financial difficulties cannot be
considered a bona fide and substantial ground to condone such delay
by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, particularly because the
non-applicant No. 2, i.e., the Insurance Company, has already filed an
appeal against the said judgment and award. Further, as per the
mandatory provisions of the Employee’s Compensation Act, the
Insurance Company had already deposited the said amount. It is also
noteworthy that the present applicant/claimant has withdrawn a
portion of the said amount. Nonetheless, the present
applicant/original claimant had already appeared in First Appeal
No.1607 of 2011 filed by the Insurance Company against the
judgment and award dated 24.12.2010, passed in Application W.C.A.
No. 2 of 2010. Therefore, I do not find any substantial ground to
condone the delay.
4. Accordingly, the application is rejected. Consequently, the
first appeal is dismissed.
[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ]
SMS
2 of 2
Checking your session…