M/S. Concan Construction Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Managing Directo Preetam Masurkar v. The Mormugao Port Authority Thr. Its Chairman
10-MCA-1120-25 (F) IN FA-1119 -25 (F).DOC Suchitra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.266/2026 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1119/2025 (F) M/S. CONCAN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., THR. ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR PREETAM MASURKAR ... APPLICANT
Versus
THE MORMUGAO PORT AUTHORITY THR. ITS CHAIRMAN ... RESPONDENT Mr Nigel da Costa Frias and Mr Shane Coutinho, Advocates for the Applicant.
Mr Kunal Nadkarni, Advocate for Respondent.
CORAM:
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
DATED:
11th JUNE 2026 P.C. :
1.
he Registry to waive oice objections and register the matter.
2.
his is an application seeking exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, mainly on the ground that the Applicant was pursuing a remedy of review (which came to be dismissed) and a challenge to the dismissal of the Review application in Writ Petition. According to the Applicant, based on legal advise, the review in writ petition was iled and time was spent in pursuing what was perceived by the Applicant, as his remedy.
11th June 2026
10-MCA-1120-25 (F) IN FA-1119 -25 (F).DOC 3.
he decree was passed in the Suit on 21.12.2018 against which a review was pursued in the writ petition within limitation. he challenge to the same came to be dismissed on 17.04.2023. Against that order, the Applicant iled a writ petition before this Court which ultimately came to be dismissed on 25.03.2025, holding that the writ petition against dismissal of the review application was not maintainable and the correct remedy to be availed of by the Applicant was by way of a First Appeal. On dismissal of the writ petition on 25.03.2025, the present application along with the First Appeal was presented on 16.04.2025.
4.
In my opinion, though the application bears a nomenclature as one under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, seeking exclusion of time, such application would not be treated as one for exclusion of time, since the writ petition itself was held non-maintainable. I therefore treat the application as an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and grant the same, since the delay in iling the First Appeal has been properly explained and is on the circumstances that the Applicant pursued a remedy of review in a writ petition instead of iling a First Appeal.
5.
Consequently, the delay in iling the First Appeal is condoned. he application is allowed.
6.
Misc. Civil Application No.266/2026 is disposed of. VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
Signed by: SUCHITRA NANDAN SINGBAL Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 11/06/2026 17:20:38 11th June 2026