GOVARDHAN MOHANLAL VIYAS SHARMA vs MOHAMMAED WASIM FAROOQUI AND ANOTHER Advocate - Rathi Swapnil S., R/1 SERVED — CA/3157/2015

Case under Act Not Known. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 08th June 2026.

CNR: HCBM030050392015

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

10th March 2015

Filing Number

CA/3879/2015

Filing Date

06-02-2015

Registration No

CA/3157/2015

Registration Date

05-03-2015

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY S. WAGHWASE

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY S. WAGHWASE

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

08th June 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Acts & Sections

Act Not Known

Petitioner(s)

GOVARDHAN MOHANLAL VIYAS SHARMA

Adv. ZIA UL MUSTAFA

Respondent(s)

MOHAMMAED WASIM FAROOQUI AND ANOTHER Advocate - Rathi Swapnil S., R/1 SERVED

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY S. WAGHWASE

17-03-2020

FOR SETTLEMENT - S

10-03-2015

URGENT ORDERS -CIVIL

17-04-2026

FOR ORDERS

Orders

08-06-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY S. WAGHWASE

The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) rejected an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a 2011 MACT award. Applicant Govardhan Sharma sought to appeal a tribunal decision that partially allowed his Rs. 3 lakh compensation claim for injuries from a 2008 road accident, awarding only Rs. 1.54 lakh, but filed 1156 days late. The court found no sufficient cause for the three-year delay, rejecting arguments of unawareness about appeal limitations and financial constraints, emphasizing protection of the insurance company's rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) rejected an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a 2011 MACT award. Applicant Govardhan Sharma sought to appeal a tribunal decision that partially allowed his Rs. 3 lakh compensation claim for injuries from a 2008 road accident, awarding only Rs. 1.54 lakh, but filed 1156 days late. The court found no sufficient cause for the three-year delay, rejecting arguments of unawareness about appeal limitations and financial constraints, emphasizing protection of the insurance company's rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case