Bombay High Court
THE ASST.DIRECTOR,EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATIONversusM/S TIELECK AUTO INDUSTRIES
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the 66‑day delay is condonable and ordered the appeal to be numbered.
Summary
The Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) filed an application seeking condonation of a 66‑day delay in filing its appeal against a decree of the lower court in favor of M/s. Tieleck Auto Industries. The respondent argued that the delay should not be condoned, relying on the precedent of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nasibunnisa Mohd. Israr Khan & Ors., where a longer delay of 139 days was not condoned. The Court observed that the present case involved a shorter delay, and the applicant had provided a detailed explanation for the postponement, unlike the earlier case. Considering the bureaucratic nature of a government corporation and the factual differences, the Court exercised its discretion to condone the delay. Consequently, the application for condonation was allowed and the appeal was ordered to be numbered.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 66 days in filing an appeal by a government corporation should be condoned.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- civil appellate jurisdiction
- bureaucratic delay
- discretion of court
- Employees State Insurance Corporation
- appeal filing
Judgment
ppn 1 21.caf-3646.12.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
by PRACHI
PRACHI PRANESH
PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR
NANDIWADEKAR
Date: 2026.03.04
17:34:18 +0530
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3646 OF 2012
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.25775 OF 2012
The Asst. Director,
Employees State Insurance Corporation ….Applicant/Appellant
V/s.
M/s. Tieleck Auto Industries .…Respondent
----
Mr. Shailesh S. Pathak for the applicant/appellant.
Mr. Dinesh G. Mishra for the respondent.
----
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 4 March 2026
P.C. :
1. This application is filed by the Employees State Insurance
Corporation seeking to condone delay of 66 days in filing the appeal. The
reason for the delay is explained in paragraph 5 which lists down various
officers through which the file moved before filing the appeal.
2. In my view, the delay is only of 66 days and it is probable that in a
government company, because of the bureaucratic style of working, there
generally do arise some delay in filing the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision of
this Court in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt.
Nasibunnisa Mohd. Israr Khan & Ors. 1 in support of his submission that
the delay should not be condoned. In my view, the said decision is
distinguishable on facts. The delay in that appeal was of 139 days, whereas
1 Civil Application No.1979 of 2011 in First Appeal (St.) No.13185 of 2011 decided on 24.7.12
ppn 2 21.caf-3646.12.doc
the delay in the present appeal is only of 66 days. Further, in that appeal,
the delay was sought to be explained in one sentence whereas in the
present case, the delay has been explained in detail in paragraph 5 of the
application. In that case, no details were given for the delay which is not
the case before me. Therefore, in my view, the said decision is not
applicable and in any case, the decisions on condonation of delay are based
on facts and the discretion to be exercised by the Court.
4. In my view, this is a fit case where delay has to be condoned and is
ordered accordingly.
5. Registry to number the appeal finally.
(JITENDRA JAIN, J.)
Checking your session…