Royal Sundaram General Ins. Co. Ltd., Chennai Thr. Its Authorized Signatory v. Smt. Sunita Rakesh Agrawal And Others

1 37caf38.2025..odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 38 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL ST 19794 OF 2024 (Royal Sundaram Alliance General Ins. Co Ltd Vs. Smt. Sunita Rakesh Agrawal and ors) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. H.N. Verma, Advocate for appellant.

Ms. Mugdha Mundle, Adv h/f Mr. H.V. Thakur, Advocate for respondent No. 9 CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.

DATED : 14-07-2025.

Heard.

2.

The applicant/appellant has filed this application for condonation of the delay of 30 days caused in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for respondent No. 9 has strongly objected to condoning the delay since no sufficient cause has been stated in the application.

3.

Despite service of notice to respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and 8, none appears on their behalf. Bailiff's report indicates that he has affixed a copy of the notice at the residence of respondent No. 7; however, no one appears for him. Considering the reasons disclosed in the application, I do not find substance in the objection of learned counsel for respondent No. 9. Hence, the application is allowed. The delay is condoned. Appeal be registered accordingly.

FIRST APPEAL ST 19794 OF 2024 Heard.

2.

Issue notice to respondents, returnable after six weeks.

2 37caf38.2025..odt 3.

Ms. Mundle waives notice for respondent No. 9. 4.

Call for record and proceedings.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) Belkhede