LSP 1 15 caf 3254.14.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Application No.3254 of 2014 In First Appeal (st) No. 22325 of 2014 And Civil Application No.3255 of 2014 United India Insurance Company Ltd. … Applicant V/s. Smt. Yasmin Samir Sheikh and others … Respondents. Mr. Rahul Mehta i/b. KMC Legal Venture Advocate for the Applicant Mr. Vilas N. Mali Advocate for the Respondent No.4 CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J DATE : 30th September 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard learned Advocate Mehta for the Applicants and learned Advocate for the Claimant-Respondents. 2. The Tribunal as per the Award dated 24th February 2011 has decided two M.A.C.T. Applications Nos.9/2006 and 10/2006. The Insurance Company intends to challenge the award in M.A.C.P. No. 10/2006, however, there is delay of 3 years and 81 days in preferring an appeal and that is why present application. LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Digitally signed by LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Date: 2026.10.03 15:14:18 +0530 LSP 2 15 caf 3254.14.doc 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta has taken me through various averments in the application and the annexures. It includes the letter sent by learned Advocate who is representing the Insurance Company before the Tribunal and the correspondence made by the Regional office to the Divisional office. 4. First stage of delay is filing an application for getting certified copy. Though the award was delivered on 24th February 2011, the copy was applied after lapse of two years on 24th February 2014 by the trial Court Advocate. Second aspect of delay is after obtaining certified copy and till the final decision is taken at office level for preferring an appeal. 5. When I have gone through the averments in the application and supporting documents, I do not find there is a convincing reason given for condonation of delay. At the first stage either the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company appearing before the Tribunal ought to have applied for certified copy after the judgment is delivered. Why it was not applied is not explained. The period is too long of two years. The next stage is taking a decision whether to prefer an appeal or not. The period is from 12th March 2014 till the draft is prepared for approval by law firm on 25th July 2014. No doubt as per part of the office procedure the approvals are required to be taken but if the necessary correspondence is perused, it seems that correspondence was not made with urgency. It seems that it was made in a routine manner. The Insurance Company ought to have LSP 3 15 caf 3254.14.doc shown diligence in taking the expeditious approvals and ought to have preferred an appeal with diligence. I find it missing. So there is no satisfactory reason for condoning the delay. Hence, the application is dismissed. 6. The amount of statutory deposit along with interest be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursal as per the Award. (S.M. MODAK, J.)