1 / 3 18-cas 697-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NO.697 OF 2026 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 10868 OF 2026 Sanjay Nathumal Palod Vs. Hindusthan Udyog Ltd. and anr. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R.D.Bhuibhar, counsel for the applicant/Appellant. Mr.Raunak Kurani counsel a/w Ms. Darshana Bhaiya counsel for the respondents. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. DATE : 27/08/2026 1. Heard. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 24 days caused in filing Second Appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the non-applicant has objected to condone the delay as the reason given, is not satisfactory. 4. Considering the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned. 5. Civil Application stands disposed of. 6. Registry to register the Appeal. Kavita 2 / 3 18-cas 697-26 SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.10868 OF 2026 1. The appellant is the original plaintiff, who had filed the suit for declaration, perpetual injunction and damages, which came to be dismissed. The appellate court has confirmed the order passed by the trial court. 2. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal on the following proposed substantial questions of law:- i) Whether the learned Courts below committed a serious error of law in not awarding damages as claimed by the appellant on account of illegal termination of services of the appellant inasmuch as the appellant had proved that the appointing authority of the appellant did not terminate the services of the appellant but the authority who was not competent to terminate the services of the appellant had terminated the appellant? ii) Whether the learned Courts below errred in law in not properly appreciating the medical evidence which clearly pointed out the ill health of the appellant at the relevant point of time coupled with the evidence of former colleague of the appellant who had categorically deposed regarding the mental harassment being meted out to the appellant? iii) Whether the learned Courts below committed a gross error of law in not drawing an inference of harassment meted out to the appellant in view of categorical deposition of the Kavita 3 / 3 18-cas 697-26 witnesses examined by the appellant and failure on the part of the respondents in discrediting their testimony in the cross-examination? 3. Issue notice to the respondents, on the above referred substantial questions of law, returnable on 17/09/2026. 4. Mr. Raunak Kurani, learned counsel waives the service of notice on behalf of respondents. JUDGE Kavita Signed by: Kavita P Tayade Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 27/08/2026 17:42:07