Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd., Banglore v. Shridhar Vinayak Katkar And ANR.

25:BHC-AS:1 Diksha Rane 61. FAST 7108-24.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL ST NO. 7108 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10490 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10491 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL ST NO. 7108 OF 2024 TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BANGLORE ..APPELLANT VS.

SHRIDHAR VINAYAK KATKAR & ANR.

..RESPONDENTS ------------ Mr. D. S. Joshi for appellant.

Mr. S. P. Ingle for respondents.

------------ CORAM :

RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE :

3 SEPTEMBER 2025.

P.C. :

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10490 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL ST NO. 7108 OF 2024:- 1.

This application is filed for condonation of delay of 44 days in filing the First Appeal.

2.

Heard learned counsel for both sides and I have perused the contents of the Interim Application.

3.

Supreme Court in the judgment of Collector, Land Acquisition,

Diksha Rane 61. FAST 7108-24.doc Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katji and Others reported in 1987 SC 1353, has held that:

"Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every house's delay. Every second's delay ? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner."

4.

Supreme Court in the case of S. Ganesharaju (Dead) through Lrs V. Narasamma (Dead) through Lrs reported in (2013) 11 SCC 341, more specifically, paragraph Nos. 12 and 13, of the said judgment held that a liberal construction to the cause of delay should be given. The said paragraphs are reproduced herein below:

12. The expression "sufficient cause" as appearing in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has to be given a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Unless the respondents are able to show malafides in not approaching the court within the period of limitation, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. The trend of the courts while dealing with the matter with regard to condonation of delay has tilted more towards condoning delay and directing the parties to contest the matter on merits, meaning thereby that such technicalities have been given go-by.

13. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy or foreclose the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. 5.

Bombay High Court in the judgment of Kamalbai Narasaiyya Shrimal and Another Vs. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare reported in 2007

(1) MH. L.J. 807, paragraph Nos.13 and 15 has held:

Diksha Rane 61. FAST 7108-24.doc

13. The factual position is manifestly clear on bare perusal of the application for condonation filed by the petitioners before the learned District Judge. The only relevant statement in the application is thus: "The delay caused in preferring the appeal is of six months. The caused delay is not intentional one. The appellants are poor and helpless persons. If the delay is not condoned appellant may cause irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The suit was for recovery of possession and present appellants are tenants. If the delay is not condoned then appellants will become shelterless."

15. The expression "sufficient cause" cannot be erased from section of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach which would defeat the very purpose of section 5 of the Limitation Act. There must be some cause which can be termed as a sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation. I do not find any such "sufficient cause" stated in the application and as such no interference in the impugned order is called for." 6.

According to me, considering the submissions and the law laid down in various judgments, the grounds are made out to allow the Civil Application.

7.

The Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and disposed of accordingly.

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10491 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL ST NO. 7108 OF 2024 :- 8.

This Application has been filed for seeking stay to the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned award dated 21 July 2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

Diksha Rane 61. FAST 7108-24.doc Mumbai in M.A.c.P. No. 219 of 2017. The applicant is directed to deposit the decreetal amount within a period of four weeks. 9.

Subject to the amount being deposited, there will be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a).

10.

The Interim Application is disposed of accordingly. FIRST APPEAL ST NO. 7108 OF 2024:- 11.

Stand over to 25 September 2025.

12.

Learned counsel of both sides are permitted to file compilation of documents, short synopsis along with their prepositions of law and authorities relied upon by them, if any, by 25 September 2025. (Rajesh S. Patil, J.) Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 12/09/2025 19:39:53