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
Filing Number
CA/13796/2022
Filing Date
07-May-2022
Registration No
CA/11309/2024
Registration Date
16-Oct-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
17-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 28-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA THR ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR B S SALUNKE MANORKAR DEEPAK S
Respondent(s)
-
1.BHIKA SHRIDHAR WANI AND ORS
Adv. ,BONDAR UTTAM BAJIRAO,ADV. U.B. BONDAR FOR R/3 1123
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arun R. PednekerView PDF
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.
-
17-Apr-2026
—
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arun R. Pedneker
-
23-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arun R. PednekerView PDF
-
23-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-May-2022
Case filed
Registration No. CA/11309/2024
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.
Explore other courts