* 1 * CA.4423.2009 in F.A.[ST]. 26376.2009 23.3.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4423 OF 2009 [FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY] IN FIRST APPEAL [ST] NO. 26376 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4250 OF 2009 [FOR FRESH NOTICE] IN FIRST APPEAL [ST] NO. 26376 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4424 OF 2009 [FOR STAY] IN FIRST APPEAL [ST] NO. 26376 OF 2009 National Insurance Company Limited .......Applicants V/S. Raghuraj Hitai Yadav & another .........Respondents * * * * * * Mr. Rahul Mehta i/by. KMC Legal Venture, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. T.J. Mendon, Advocate for respondent no.1. None for respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 23 March, 2011. P.C. : 1. This is an application for condonation of delay filed by the * 2 * CA.4423.2009 in F.A.[ST]. 26376.2009 23.3.2011 Insurance Company in filing the First Appeal from the judgment and award dated 8th May, 2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Judge 9th Labour Court, Mumbai allowing application for compensation made by the respondent. The application is opposed by the respondent. 2. The facts discussed in the application show that the application for certified copy of the impugned judgment and award was made on 25th May, 2009. The certified copy was ready on 5th June, 2005. The advocate for the applicant collected the same on 6th June, 2005. The advocate forwarded that copy to the applicant on 21st August, 2009. Thereafter, the Divisional office of the applicant by its letter dated 30th September, 2009 sought advice of its advocate regarding filing of the appeal. The Regional office of the applicant took decision to prefer an appeal on 14th October, 2009 and the appeal alongwith the present application for condonation of delay came to be filed on 27th October, 2009. Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel for the applicant, states that according to him the correct delay is of 92 days and not 80 days as stated in the application. This number of days of delay is disputed by the respondent, according to whom, the delay is of 101 days. Though * 3 * CA.4423.2009 in F.A.[ST]. 26376.2009 23.3.2011 the difference in the days of delay is substantial, instead of going into the question of correctness of the statements made by the advocates, at this stage, it will be convenient to look into the explanation offered by the applicant for the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The application does not offer any explanation whatsoever for the delay until 21st August, 2009. It states that after receiving the certified copy of the judgment and award on 21st August, 2009 the applicant had taken advise from its panel advocate in the High Court about filing of the appeal. The application is silent as to when was the advise sought and when was it given. Thereafter, the Divisional office of the applicant desired to take further opinion of some other advocate for filing of the appeal and it forwarded the papers alongwith its covering letter dated 30th September, 2009. The advocate whose opinion was sought, gave his advice only on 14th October, 2009 and 13 days after that the application came to be filed. Even is some allowance is to be given to the fact that the applicant is an institution and that each institution has it’s own set of procedure to be followed for taking decision in filing court proceedings, unless the facts disclose reasonable amount of diligence on it’s part in following the procedure, * 4 * CA.4423.2009 in F.A.[ST]. 26376.2009 23.3.2011 it cannot be said that the reason of procedural delay is a satisfactory reason to condone the delay. Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that there was lapse on the part of the advocate appearing for the applicant, before the Commissioner in not making immediate application for certified copy of the judgment and award and forwarding the same immediately on its receipt. Therefore, he submits that the applicant should not be made to suffer on that count. But the applicant has itself condoned the negligence on the part of it’s advocate by not taking any action against the advocate for the negligence. Further, once there was already delay, it was expected that the applicant takes quicker actions in filing the appeal thereafter. The explanation offered by the applicant from 21st August, 2009 to 27th October, 2009 is also not satisfactory. Hence, I am not inclined to condone the delay. The application is dismissed. In view thereof, Civil Application No. 4250 of 2009 taken out for issuing fresh notice and Civil Application No. 4424 of 2009 taken out for stay do not survive. The same are accordingly disposed off. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]