Judgment · High Court · 2006
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 20 Jan 2006
- Bench
- ANOOP V MOHTA, R M LODHA, V MOHTA
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Heard. For the reasons stated in support of the Notice of Motion, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the Appeal belatedly. The delay of three days is sufficiently explained. : 2 : We accordingly condone the delay.…
- Para 55. Notice of Motion stands disposed of. LODHA, J.] [R.M. LODHA, J.] [R.M. LODHA, J.] [R.M. [srpasha@hc] [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.]
Judgment
] .. Appellant (Ori. Plaintiff) The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. ] .. Respondents (Ori. Defendants) Mr. N.K. Mudnaney for the applicant. Mr. K.J. Presswala i/b M/s. Mulla & Mulla and Cragie Blunt & Caroe for the respondents. CORAM: R.M. LODHA & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 20TH JANUARY, 2006 P.C. : .
Heard. For the reasons stated in support of the Notice of Motion, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the Appeal belatedly. The delay of three days is sufficiently explained. : 2 : We accordingly condone the delay. Office is directed to process the Appeal and
post it for admission as soon as numbered.
Notice of Motion stands disposed of. LODHA, J.] [R.M. LODHA, J.] [R.M. LODHA, J.] [R.M. [srpasha@hc] [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] [ANOOP
[ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.]
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.