Bombay High Court
RAM RAJBHAI SHRESHTHAversusNEW AKASH GANGA CHS LTD. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court held that the nine‑day delay is condoned as it is not gross and sufficient justification was shown.
Summary
Ram Rajbhai Shreshtha filed an appeal against New Akash Ganga CHS Ltd. but missed the prescribed time limit by nine days. He filed an interim application seeking condonation of the delay, arguing that the delay was not gross and that he would be rendered remediless otherwise. The respondent opposed the application orally but did not file a written opposition. The Court, after reviewing the memo and noting the well‑settled Supreme Court principles on condonation, found the reasons for delay satisfactory and in the interest of justice. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay, ordered the appeal to be listed for admission, and awarded no costs.
Issues considered
- Whether a nine‑day delay in filing an appeal can be condoned under established Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- appeal
- civil procedure
- interim application
- justice
- costs
Judgment
503 - IA-6508-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6508 OF 2026
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 20546 OF 2026
Ram Rajbhai Shreshtha Applicant
Versus
New Akash Ganga CHS Ltd. And Ors. Respondents
_______
Mr. Eshaan Saroop i/by Mr. Hoshang S. Tafti, Advocates for the Applicant.
Ms. Ruju R. Thakkar a/w Poushali Roychoudhary, Advocates for the Respondent No.
1.
_______
CORAM: AARTI SATHE, J.
DATE: 20th AUGUST 2026.
P.C.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in this Interim Application
which is filed praying for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid appeal. The delay
which is sought to be condoned is of 09 days. On the Respondent being served, the
Respondent is represented by Ms. Ruju R. Thakkar, learned counsel. There is no
written opposition filed to this application. Ms. Ruju R. Thakkar, although has orally
opposed this application vehemently, he would not dispute the well settled position in
law in a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court in regard to the principles to be
followed on condonation of the delay and more particularly he would not dispute that,
in the clear facts and circumstances of the case, as set out in the memo of the
Page 1 of 2
Bharati
503 - IA-6508-2026.DOC
application, the Applicant ought not to suffer or be rendered remediless in pursuing the
Appeal.
2. In the aforesaid circumstances, having perused the memo of the application
and considering the period of delay not being very gross, in my opinion, the reasons as
set out certainly provide for an appropriate justification and a sufficient cause shown by
the applicant in regard to the delay in filing the appeal. It is hence in the interest of
justice that the delay is condoned.
3. Interim application is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
4. The Appeal accordingly be listed for admission, subject to removal of
objections, if any, to be removed within six weeks from today.
5. Learned counsel for Respondent undertakes to file Vakalatnama within a
period of one week from today.
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Bharati
Checking your session…