IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.430 OF 2004 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.430 OF 2004 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.430 OF 2004 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1801 OF 2004 Shri.Jaleel A.M.I.Shaikh .. Applicant V/s The General Manager, BEST Undertaking .. Respondent Ms.Neeta Karnik for the Appellant. Ms.Farida Contractor i/by M/s.Crawford Bayley & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 2.12.2005. DATE : 2.12.2005. DATE : 2.12.2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking condonation of 91 days delay in filing the Appeal. Perused the Civil Application. There is no affidavit in reply controverting the contentions in the Civil Application. Sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay. There is no case of inaction, negligence or want of bonafide on the part of the Applicant. Hence, Civil Application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)