Bombay High Court
MSRT CORPORATION, MUMBAIversusDEEPAK UTTAM SHEVALE
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court condoned the 176‑day delay and restored the first appeal.
Summary
MSRT Corporation filed a first appeal against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The High Court issued notice but the appellant failed to supply copies for service, leading to dismissal for failure to prosecute on 9 February 2026. The corporation sought restoration of the appeal, citing an unintentional delay of 176 days in filing the restoration application. The court considered that the respondents had not been served and that the delay was due to inadvertent oversight and pending permissions. It condoned the delay, imposed a modest cost, and restored the first appeal, allowing the appellant to contest the matter on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 176 days in filing an application for restoration of a dismissed appeal can be condoned.
- Whether restoration of an appeal can be granted without having served the respondents.
Subjects
- restoration of appeal
- condonation of delay
- interim application
- civil procedure
- dismissal for default
Judgment
KVM
1/3
10 - IA 6932 OF 2026.doc
Digitally
signed by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KANCHAN
KANCHAN VINOD
VINOD MAYEKAR
MAYEKAR Date:
2026.09.24
20:19:36
+0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6932/2026
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 30894/2025
MSRT CORPORATION, MUMBAI ….. APPLICANT
VS
DEEPAK UTTAM SHEVALE ….. RESPONDENT
Adv. Sneha G. Sanap for the Applicant.
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-
1) This is an interim application for restoration of the First
Appeal by condoning delay of 176 days in filing the restoration
application.
2) Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
appellant Corporation had filed the First Appeal challenging the award
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in which this Court had
issued notice by order dated 5th December, 2025. It is submitted that
thereafter since the copies were not supplied for effecting service upon
the respondents, the matter was listed before the Registrar – Judicial II
KVM
2/3
10 - IA 6932 OF 2026.doc
and on account of failure of the applicant to supply copies, the same
was dismissed for failure to prosecute the matter, by order dated 9 th
February, 2026.
4) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant/original appellant wants to contest the appeal on merits and
therefore they have sought for restoration of the First Appeal.
5) It has to be noted that since the respondents were not
even served in the First Appeal, the instant application for restoration
is being considered without issuing any notices to the respondents.
6) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order
of dismissal in default was inadvertently not taken note of and
therefore immediate steps were not taken for filing application for
restoration. She submits that after the order was noted, necessary
steps for filing application for restoration were taken and this has
caused the delay of 176 days. She submits that the delay is
unintentional.
7) Having regard to the reasons mentioned in the
application and submissions advanced and considering the reasons for
delay on the part of the Corporation in seeking necessary permissions
and approvals, the instant application needs to be allowed so that the
applicant/appellant is granted an opportunity to contest the appeal on
KVM
3/3
10 - IA 6932 OF 2026.doc
merits.
8) Accordingly, the instant application is allowed. The delay
of 176 days in filing the restoration application is condoned subject to
the cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid by the applicant to the Kirtikar Law
Library, High Court, Bombay within two weeks from today.
9) Interim Application is allowed and accordingly, First
Appeal is restored.
[PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.]
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.