1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3842 OF 2005 IN APPEAL (L) NO.1285 OF 2005 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.777 OF 2005 IN EXECUTIION APPLICATION NO.486 OF 2003 (Award dt.26.4.2001) Neeta Tulsidas Goyal .. Appellant v/s. M/s.Maha Rashtra Apex Corporation & ors. .. Respondents Mr.Rajeev Narula i/by M/s.J.Narula & Associates for the appellant. CORAM : R.M.LODHA AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 9th January, 2006 P.C. There is delay of three days in filing the appeal. The respondents have not chosen to appear to oppose the notice of motion despite service. 2. For the reasons stated in the affidavit in support of the notice of motion, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal in time. 3. We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeal. Office is directed to process the appeal and post it for admission as soon as numbered. 2 4. Notice of motion stands disposed of. (R.M. (R.M. (R.M. LODHA, J.) LODHA, J.) LODHA, J.) (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.)