Bombay High Court
AMOL NARAYAN JADHAVversusDEVENDRA BABAN GHARGE AND ANR.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court condoned the six‑year delay on the condition that the applicant shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period.
Summary
The applicant, Amol Narayan Jadhav, filed an interim application seeking condonation of a six‑year and 36‑day delay in filing an appeal against the tribunal’s rejection of his claim. The court examined whether the delay could be excused despite the lengthy period, noting that the applicant offered to forgo interest for the delayed period. The respondents opposed the condonation, relying on a Karnataka High Court decision that lapses should not be excused. The judge found no evidence of mala fides and held that the applicant’s willingness to waive interest justified a pragmatic approach. Consequently, the court condoned the delay on the condition that the applicant would not be entitled to interest for the period of delay. The matter was then set for disposal on the merits of the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of six years and 36 days in preferring an appeal can be condoned under the principles of equity and procedural law
- Whether the applicant’s waiver of interest for the delayed period influences the court’s discretion to condone the delay
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- interest waiver
- interim application
- civil appeal
- insurance claim
- procedural law
Judgment
35-IA-175-2026=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 175 OF 2026
Digitally
IN
signed by
UDAY FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 639 OF 2026
UDAY SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI JAGTAP WITH
JAGTAP Date:
2026.09.01
12:23:52 FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 639 OF 2026
+0530
Amol Narayan Jadhav … Applicant
Vs.
Devendra Baban Gharge and Anr. … Respondents
………….
Mr. Aditya Ghadge h/f Avesh Ghadge for the Applicant
Mr. Rushikesh Thakur h/f Sachin Phatak for Respondent No.2 – Insurance
Company.
………….
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 29th AUGUST, 2026.
P. C. :
I.A.NO. 175 OF 2026
. Heard both sides.
2. The applicant seeks to condone the delay of 6 years and 36 days in
preferring the appeal against the rejection of his entire claim by the
Tribunal.
3. There is no reason to infer any mala fides on the part of the
applicant in preferring the application belatedly. Reliance is placed on
the judgments of Supreme Court in case of Pahlad and Anr. Vs. Jagatpal
Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 3
35-IA-175-2026=.doc
& Ors. (2026) ACJ 751 and Thakor Tinuji @ Tinaji Kamshiji vs. Nanalal
M. Thakker & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.3871 of 2025), decided on
24.02.2025 to buttress that the petitioner is ready to give up interest for
the delayed period and, therefore, pragmatic approach be adopted.
4. The application is contested by the respondents on the ground that
the reasons stated in the application are not sufficient to condone the
delay. Reliance is placed on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the
case of Cheluvaraju Vs. Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(2016) ACJ 2039 to buttress that if there are lapses on the part of the
appellant, then he is bound to suffer.
5. The averments of the application have gone uncontroverted. There
is no reason to infer any oblique motive on the part of the applicant. The
applicant is ready to give up interest for the delayed period. I prefer to
rely upon the judgment cited by the applicant. The judgment cited by the
respondents cannot be made applicable to the present case. The claim
for interest has been waived by the applicant. It would be pragmatic to
consider the first appeal on merits.
6. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay stands
condoned on the condition that the applicant shall not be entitled for the
interest for delayed period.
Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 3
35-IA-175-2026=.doc
FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 639 OF 2026
7. Issue notice for disposal to the respondents returnable on
28.09.2026.
8. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel waives notice for respondent no.2.
9. Call for record and proceedings.
10. The compilation of documents of the appellant is tendered on
record.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )
Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 3
Checking your session…