Gujarat High Court
CA/3526/2025 of ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs KALIBEN MASARIBHAI AAHIR on 5 August 2025
05/08/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3526 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 19618 of 2025 ======================================================================= ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Versus KALIBEN MASARIBHAI AAHIR &
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3526 of 2025In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 19618 of 2025
=======================================================================ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Versus KALIBEN MASARIBHAI AAHIR & ORS.
=======================================================================
Appearance:
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Applicant(s) No. 1RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4,5
=======================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJEand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
Date : 05/08/2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. This application is filed by the applicant under Section5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 29 days inpreferring the appeal against judgment and award dated12.02.2025 passed by the Mother Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.),Kheda at Nadiad in MACP No.460 of 2016.
2. Rule was issued on 08.07.2025 returnable on 05.08.2025. The office remarks show that that Rule is not receivedback so far.
3. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court tothe contents of paras-4 to 6 of the application and submitted thatthe delay has occurred on account of administrative procedure andthe same may kindly be condoned.
4. Considering the aforesaid, particularly, period of 29days of delay, the Court is of the view that considering the factsinvolved in the case, delay cannot be treated as inordinate.
5. Considering the submissions and the contents of theapplication mentioned hereinabove, the delay is also explainedsufficiently.
6. A reference in this regard may be made to thejudgment of the Supreme Court in case of Sheo Raj Singh(Deceased) through Legal Representatives and others vs/. Union ofIndia and Another, reported in, (2023) 10 SCC 531, wherein theterm “Sufficient Cause” was interpreted and the approach ofCourts while deciding application for condonation of delay wasdiscussed.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. Thedelay of 29 is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute.
8. Registry is directed to list the main appeal in duecourse.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
(NSSG,J)
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.