Bombay High Court
TRITON AGRO FOODS PRIVATE THROUGH GENERAL MANAGERversusEMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION THROUGH THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The second restoration application is dismissed.
Summary
The applicant, Triton Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., filed a second restoration application seeking to revive a civil application (No. 1789 of 2018) that had been dismissed for non‑prosecution in 2019, and also asked for condonation of a delay of six years and eighty‑six days. The respondent, Employees State Insurance Corporation, contended that the applicant was negligent, had failed to comply with an interim order of April 2012, and was attempting to blame its own advocate to evade responsibility. The court examined the silence of the second application regarding the six‑year lapse and noted that the applicant could not claim ignorance of the proceedings. It held that the reasons given for the delay were fanciful, the application was vague, and the applicant’s conduct was mala fide. Applying the maxim "dura lex sed lex," the court dismissed the second restoration application, refusing to condone the delay and ordering exemplary costs, though it waived the costs on the applicant’s request.
Issues considered
- Whether the second restoration application filed after a delay of six years and eighty‑six days can be condoned.
- Whether the earlier dismissed civil application for restoration of the first appeal should be reinstated.
- Whether exemplary costs should be imposed on the applicant for the frivolous application.
Subjects
- restoration of appeal
- condonation of delay
- non‑prosecution
- interim order
- exemplary costs
- mala fide
- diligence
Judgment
1/6
503-IA-1041-2026(C).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1041 OF 2026
(For Restoration)
IN
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1789 OF 2018
(For Restoration)
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1292 OF 2011
Triton Agro Foods Private Through
General Manager ….Applicant
Versus.
Employees State Insurance Corporation Through
The Assistant Director ....Respondent
-----
Mr. Umesh Mankapure (Through VC) i/b Mr. Parth Pitambare, for
Applicant.
Digitally
signed by
SHANTANU
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
Mr. Anand S. Kulkarni (Through VC), for the Respondent.
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
DHUDUM Date:
2026.09.30
16:21:53
+0530
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
Oral Order.
1. This Interim Application is circulated pursuant to the praecipe
dated 29th September 2026, same is marked with “X” for identification. In
view of the urgency expressed by Mr. Umesh Mankapure, learned Advocate
for the Applicant, this Application was ordered to be placed on today’s
“Production Board”.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
2/6
503-IA-1041-2026(C).DOC
2. Heard, Mr. Umesh Mankapure, learned Advocate for the
Applicant and Mr. Anand S. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Respondent.
3. By this Interim Application, the Applicant has sought the
following substantial relief in prayer clauses (a) and (b), which are
transcribed verbatim:
“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to restore the
aforesaid Civil Application No.1789 of 2018 in its
original position on such terms and conditions as this
Hon’ble High Court may deem fit;
(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to condone the delay of 6
year 86 days in filing the Present Application;”
4. Apparently, the Civil Application No.1789 of 2018 filed by the
Applicant, seeking restoration of the First Appeal, was dismissed by this
Court vide order dated 15th October 2019, which reads as follows:
“1. Heard.
2. By this Civil Application, the Applicant is seeking
condonation of delay of 4 years and 267 days delay in
filing the present Civil Application for restoration of the
First Appeal.
3. When the matter is called out, no one appeared on behalf
of the Applicant. Dismissed for non prosecution.”
5. Thus, the request in this Interim Application No.1041 of 2026
(“2nd Restoration Application”) is for restoration of the restoration Civil
Shantanu S. Dhudum
3/6
503-IA-1041-2026(C).DOC
Application No.1789 of 2018 (“1st Restoration Application”). Pertinently,
both restoration applications were filed after an enormous delay.
6. Mr. Umesh Mankapure, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
submits that the Applicant be granted an opportunity to advance the case
on merits by condoning the delay, which is not intentional.
7. Mr. Anand S. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Respondent,
referring to the records placed in these proceedings, submits that the
Applicant is negligent and has failed to pursue the First Appeal and the
interim Applications. He submits that the Applicant was protected by an
interim order dated 24th April 2012, passed in Civil Application No. 1230 of
2010 in First Appeal No. 1292 of 2011. He submits that, despite the
interim protection, which was subject to deposit of the amount, the
Applicant willfully failed to comply with the said order and neglected to
deposit the amount of Rs. 1,36,637/-. He submits that the Applicant has
attempted to falsely lay the blame on the Applicant's Advocate, with mala
fide intent and to take advantage. He submits that the 2nd Restoration
Application is vague and sketchy. He submits that the Applicant has shown
no cause, much less sufficient cause, to condone an enormous delay of 6
years and 86 days in filing the 2 nd Restoration Application. He submits that
it is very easy for the Applicant to blame his Advocate and give no
explanation as to what course the Applicant followed during the period of
Shantanu S. Dhudum
4/6
503-IA-1041-2026(C).DOC
6 years and 86 days. He submits that the Applicant's conduct is mala fide
and that the Applicant has apparently taken Court proceedings for granted.
8. Perused the records with the assistance of the learned Advocates.
9. The 2nd Restoration Application was filed on 7 th February 2026,
i.e. after a delay of 6 years and 86 days from the dismissal of the 1st
Restoration Application. The reasons for the delay are set out in paragraphs
8, 9 and 10. Apparently, the Applicant attempts to blame his Advocate for
the delay.
10. The 2nd Restoration Application is totally silent on the Applicant’s
silence for 6 years and 86 days. Information on case details, status, listing,
etc. is easily available on the website of this Court. This Application
contains no averment regarding these aspects, including the Applicant's
follow-ups, if any, with his Advocate.
11. The Applicant cannot plead ignorance of the proceedings before
this Court, especially when the Applicant approached this Court seeking
urgent relief in the nature of a stay on the recovery of the amount, for
which interim relief was granted on 24th April 2012, subject to deposit. The
Applicant neglected to comply with the order dated 24 th April 2012, as
submitted by Mr. Anand S. Kulkarni.
12. Mr. Anand S. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Respondent, is
justified in submitting that the Applicant, by making a vague statement
Shantanu S. Dhudum
5/6
503-IA-1041-2026(C).DOC
against his Advocate, is attempting to take advantage of the situation.
Perhaps the Applicant is under the mistaken notion that by making
unsubstantiated statements against his own Advocate, he can get away
with the delay, which, as the record shows, stems from inaction and
negligence on the Applicant's part.
13. The contents of the 2nd Restoration Application are indeed
sketchy and vague in the context of the enormous delay of 6 years and 86
days, which remains unexplained and indicates the Applicant's negligence
and inaction in pursuing his remedies in time. The Applicant ought to have
been diligent in pursuing his remedies, especially after the 1 st Restoration
Application was dismissed for non-prosecution. The 1 st Restoration
Application was filed after a delay of 4 years and 267 days in seeking
restoration of the First Appeal No. 1292 of 2011.
14. The reasons the Applicant seeks to advance in the 2 nd Restoration
Application for condoning the delay are fanciful and fail to show any
cause, let alone sufficient cause. This Application is devoid of merit. No
case is made for indulgence.
15. The legal maxim “dura lex sed lex”, which means “the law is
hard, but it is the law”, is apt to the facts of this case. This 2nd Restoration
Application is therefore dismissed.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
6/6
503-IA-1041-2026(C).DOC
16. The dismissal of the 1st Restoration Application for non-
prosecution, coupled with the request in this 2nd Restoration Application to
restore it, filed after 6 years and 86 days, warrants dismissal of this
Application, with exemplary costs payable by the Applicant. It is on the
persuasion of Mr. Umesh Mankapure, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
that I am persuaded not to impose any costs.
17. Interim Application No.1041 of 2026 is dismissed.
( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Shantanu S. Dhudum
Checking your session…