Bombay High Court
Sewri Nilgiri Udyog Bhavan Co-Op. ... vs M/S. M.B. Development Corporation, ... on 20 August, 2024
Author: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Bench: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
2024:BHC-AS:33601
5-IA-ST-17421-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.17421 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.17417 OF 2022
Sewri Nilgiri Udyog Bhavan
Co-Op. Society Limited ...Applicant.
In the matter between
Ashwin C. Negandhi And Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
M/S. M.B. Development Corporation,
Mumbai And Ors. ...Respondents
------------
Adv. Siddhesh Bhole, Yakshay Chheda, Ashwin Pimpale i/b SSB Legal &
Advisory for the Appellants in FA/ST/17417/2022.
Adv. A. R. Patil, AGP for the State.
Adv. Pallavi Khare for the Respondent Corporation.
Adv. Devrajan i/b Kavita A. Shah for Respondent No. 2 in FA/397/2024 & for
the Appellant in FA/106/2003.
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : August 20, 2024.
P. C. :
1. The present application has been preferred seeking
condonation of delay of 42 days caused in preferring the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant is a Society and it took some time to decide to file the present appeal and in giving instructions to its advocate to draft the present appeal and therefore there is a delay of 42 days.
Harish 1 of 2 5-IA-ST-17421-2022.doc
3. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 would submit that there is no explanation much less sufficient explanation tendered for the delay of 42 days. He would submit that it is not the duration of the delay but the explanation which is required to be taken into consideration and considering the explanation given for the delay, the same is required to be rejected.
4. In the application, the applicant Society has submitted that the appeal could not be filed as it took some time in deciding to file the present appeal and instructing their appointed Advocate to draft the present appeal. The applicant in the present case is not an individual, but a Co-operative Society, and it is well known that for the purpose of taking any decision to institute litigation, a conscious decision has to be arrived at by the Managing Committee of the Society. In the present case, the applicant states that time was taken by the Society to decide to file the present appeal and the said explanation is acceptable. It is also well settled that each and every day's delay is not required to be explained and what is required to be considered is whether there is a sufficient explanation.
5. Considering that the applicant is a Co-operative Society the delay of 42 days caused in preferring the present appeal is not such a colossal delay that the explanation tendered cannot be accepted.
6. In light of the above, application is allowed. The delay of 42 days stands condoned.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Harish 2 of 2
Signed by: Harish V. Chaudhari
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/08/2024 13:08:45