NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA THR ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR B S SALUNKE MANORKAR DEEPAK S vs BHIKA SHRIDHAR WANI AND ORS — CA/11309/2024

Case under Arbitration and Concilation Act 1996 Section 37. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th April 2026.

CNR: HCBM030181772022

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

CA/13796/2022

Filing Date

07-05-2022

Registration No

CA/11309/2024

Registration Date

16-10-2024

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN R. PEDNEKER

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN R. PEDNEKER

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

17th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Concilation Act 1996 Section 37

Petitioner(s)

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA THR ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR B S SALUNKE MANORKAR DEEPAK S

Respondent(s)

BHIKA SHRIDHAR WANI AND ORS

Adv. ,BONDAR UTTAM BAJIRAO,ADV. U.B. BONDAR FOR R/3 1123

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN R. PEDNEKER

23-03-2026

DUE ORDERS- CIVIL

17-04-2026

Orders

17-04-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN R. PEDNEKER

Summary of CA 11309/2024 The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed NHAI's application seeking condonation of 833 days' delay in filing an appeal against a 2019 order. NHAI attributed the delay to administrative procedures including obtaining approvals from its regional office and legal consultants. The court rejected these reasons, holding that administrative convenience cannot justify such substantial delay, applying Supreme Court precedent that delays beyond the 90-day appeal period require compelling justification. Consequently, the underlying appeal was also dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CA 11309/2024 The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed NHAI's application seeking condonation of 833 days' delay in filing an appeal against a 2019 order. NHAI attributed the delay to administrative procedures including obtaining approvals from its regional office and legal consultants. The court rejected these reasons, holding that administrative convenience cannot justify such substantial delay, applying Supreme Court precedent that delays beyond the 90-day appeal period require compelling justification. Consequently, the underlying appeal was also dismissed. 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