1/6 503-IA-1041-2026(C).DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1041 OF 2026 (For Restoration) IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1789 OF 2018 (For Restoration) IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1292 OF 2011 Triton Agro Foods Private Through General Manager ….Applicant Versus. Employees State Insurance Corporation Through The Assistant Director ....Respondent ----- Mr. Umesh Mankapure (Through VC) i/b Mr. Parth Pitambare, for Applicant. Mr. Anand S. Kulkarni (Through VC), for the Respondent. ------- CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026. Oral Order. 1. This Interim Application is circulated pursuant to the praecipe dated 29th September 2026, same is marked with “X” for identification. In view of the urgency expressed by Mr. Umesh Mankapure, learned Advocate for the Applicant, this Application was ordered to be placed on today’s “Production Board”. Shantanu S. Dhudum SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Date: 2026.09.30 16:21:53 +0530 2/6 503-IA-1041-2026(C).DOC 2. Heard, Mr. Umesh Mankapure, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. Anand S. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Respondent. 3. By this Interim Application, the Applicant has sought the following substantial relief in prayer clauses (a) and (b), which are transcribed verbatim: “(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to restore the aforesaid Civil Application No.1789 of 2018 in its original position on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit; (b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to condone the delay of 6 year 86 days in filing the Present Application;” 4. Apparently, the Civil Application No.1789 of 2018 filed by the Applicant, seeking restoration of the First Appeal, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15th October 2019, which reads as follows: “1. Heard. 2. By this Civil Application, the Applicant is seeking condonation of delay of 4 years and 267 days delay in filing the present Civil Application for restoration of the First Appeal. 3. When the matter is called out, no one appeared on behalf of the Applicant. Dismissed for non prosecution.” 5. Thus, the request in this Interim Application No.1041 of 2026 (“2nd Restoration Application”) is for restoration of the restoration Civil Shantanu S. Dhudum 3/6 503-IA-1041-2026(C).DOC Application No.1789 of 2018 (“1st Restoration Application”). Pertinently, both restoration applications were filed after an enormous delay. 6. Mr. Umesh Mankapure, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that the Applicant be granted an opportunity to advance the case on merits by condoning the delay, which is not intentional. 7. Mr. Anand S. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Respondent, referring to the records placed in these proceedings, submits that the Applicant is negligent and has failed to pursue the First Appeal and the interim Applications. He submits that the Applicant was protected by an interim order dated 24th April 2012, passed in Civil Application No. 1230 of 2010 in First Appeal No. 1292 of 2011. He submits that, despite the interim protection, which was subject to deposit of the amount, the Applicant willfully failed to comply with the said order and neglected to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,36,637/-. He submits that the Applicant has attempted to falsely lay the blame on the Applicant's Advocate, with mala fide intent and to take advantage. He submits that the 2nd Restoration Application is vague and sketchy. He submits that the Applicant has shown no cause, much less sufficient cause, to condone an enormous delay of 6 years and 86 days in filing the 2nd Restoration Application. He submits that it is very easy for the Applicant to blame his Advocate and give no explanation as to what course the Applicant followed during the period of Shantanu S. Dhudum 4/6 503-IA-1041-2026(C).DOC 6 years and 86 days. He submits that the Applicant's conduct is mala fide and that the Applicant has apparently taken Court proceedings for granted. 8. Perused the records with the assistance of the learned Advocates. 9. The 2nd Restoration Application was filed on 7th February 2026, i.e. after a delay of 6 years and 86 days from the dismissal of the 1st Restoration Application. The reasons for the delay are set out in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10. Apparently, the Applicant attempts to blame his Advocate for the delay. 10. The 2nd Restoration Application is totally silent on the Applicant’s silence for 6 years and 86 days. Information on case details, status, listing, etc. is easily available on the website of this Court. This Application contains no averment regarding these aspects, including the Applicant's follow-ups, if any, with his Advocate. 11. The Applicant cannot plead ignorance of the proceedings before this Court, especially when the Applicant approached this Court seeking urgent relief in the nature of a stay on the recovery of the amount, for which interim relief was granted on 24th April 2012, subject to deposit. The Applicant neglected to comply with the order dated 24th April 2012, as submitted by Mr. Anand S. Kulkarni. 12. Mr. Anand S. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Respondent, is justified in submitting that the Applicant, by making a vague statement Shantanu S. Dhudum 5/6 503-IA-1041-2026(C).DOC against his Advocate, is attempting to take advantage of the situation. Perhaps the Applicant is under the mistaken notion that by making unsubstantiated statements against his own Advocate, he can get away with the delay, which, as the record shows, stems from inaction and negligence on the Applicant's part. 13. The contents of the 2nd Restoration Application are indeed sketchy and vague in the context of the enormous delay of 6 years and 86 days, which remains unexplained and indicates the Applicant's negligence and inaction in pursuing his remedies in time. The Applicant ought to have been diligent in pursuing his remedies, especially after the 1st Restoration Application was dismissed for non-prosecution. The 1st Restoration Application was filed after a delay of 4 years and 267 days in seeking restoration of the First Appeal No. 1292 of 2011. 14. The reasons the Applicant seeks to advance in the 2nd Restoration Application for condoning the delay are fanciful and fail to show any cause, let alone sufficient cause. This Application is devoid of merit. No case is made for indulgence. 15. The legal maxim “dura lex sed lex”, which means “the law is hard, but it is the law”, is apt to the facts of this case. This 2nd Restoration Application is therefore dismissed. Shantanu S. Dhudum 6/6 503-IA-1041-2026(C).DOC 16. The dismissal of the 1st Restoration Application for non- prosecution, coupled with the request in this 2nd Restoration Application to restore it, filed after 6 years and 86 days, warrants dismissal of this Application, with exemplary costs payable by the Applicant. It is on the persuasion of Mr. Umesh Mankapure, learned Advocate for the Applicant, that I am persuaded not to impose any costs. 17. Interim Application No.1041 of 2026 is dismissed. ( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) Shantanu S. Dhudum