1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2415 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO. 330 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 562 OF 2007 Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., .. Appellants. Vs. Shramik General Kamgar Union & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. S.R. Pandey along with Mr. Astad Randeria i/by Mulla & Mulla & Graige Blunt & Caroe for Appellants. Mr. Rahul Nerlekar for Respondent No. 1. Mr. F. Dubhash i/by Harish Joshi & Co. for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ DATE : 24TH AUGUST, 2009 2 P.C. : . Heard. 2. This notice of motion is taken out by the appellants who are aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed on 24.4.2008 in Review Petition No. 47 of 2007. In support of the notice of motion for condonation of delay, the appellants have filed affidavit of Mr. Gautam Sethi (Financial Controller) and has narrated the events which led to the delay and according to the appellants, the actual delay is of 19 days as calculated but on record it comes to 318 days. One of the reasons given by the appellants is that he was not keeping well. 3. There is no affidavit in reply filed by the respondents. Except for respondent no. 1, the other respondents have no objection. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 states that delay may be condoned subject to costs. 4. In absence of any affidavit in reply filed by respondent no. 1, it will not be proper for us to impose any costs on the appellants as it is not disputed that the affidavit filed in support of the notice of motion explaining the delay does not make out any 3 good and sufficient ground for condoning the same. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the notice of motion. The notice of motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). ( J. N. PATEL, J.) (SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)