Sitaram Tukaram Nhavi v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

(1) 938 CA-1580.2020.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 938 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1580 OF 2020 IN FAST/12501/2019 WITH CA/1589/2020 IN FAST/12506/2019 WITH CA/1590/2020 IN FAST/12510/2019 WITH CA/1591/2020 IN FAST/12514/2019 WITH CA/1587/2020 IN FAST/12516/2019 WITH CA/1583/2020 IN FAST/12518/2019 WITH CA/1582/2020 IN FAST/12524/2019 WITH CA/1581/2020 IN FAST/12527/2019 WITH CA/1584/2020 IN FAST/12529/2019 WITH CA/1585/2020 IN FAST/12531/2019 WITH CA/1588/2020 IN FAST/12533/2019 WITH CA/1586/2020 IN FAST/12536/2019 SITARAM TUKARAM NHAVI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.N. Kendre, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. A.D. Pawar, Advocate for respondent No.4. ...

CORAM :

SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.

DATED :

07.01.2023.

ORDER:- 1.

Heard rival submissions. The respective applicants are seeking condonation of delay periods as mentioned in these respective applications in filing the appeals, which appears to be caused due to their poor financial condition. The learned A.G.P. as well as the learned Counsel for the Acquiring Body strongly opposed the applications on the ground that the delay is not properly explained and there is also circulation delay.

(2) 938 CA-1580.2020.odt 2.

However, considering the statutory right of the applicants, the delay periods in all these applications stand condoned subject to condition that the applicants shall not claim any interest for the aforesaid delay periods and also for the delay in circulating the matters belatedly. 3.

The appeals be placed for admission after removal of office objections.

4.

The Civil Applications are disposed of accordingly. (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) vd_dhirde