Allowed

Chunilal R. Shah v. M/S. Panchavati Valves and Flanges Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Oct 2008APPP/225/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed an application for condonation of a five-day delay in filing a criminal appeal. The court held that since the applicant was unaware due to lack of notice after case transfer and the fault of his advocate, it constituted sufficient cause.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay is allowed and disposed of; leave for appeal is placed on board.

Chunilal R. Shah Vs M/S. Panchavati Valves and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 225 OF 2007
 IN
 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1283 OF 2007

¶4

 Shri Chunilal R. Shah ...Applicant
 (Orig.Complainant)
 vs.
 M/s.Panchavati Valves &
 Flanges Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
 (No.1 to 4 - orig.
 Accused)

¶5

 Mr.Amit Sheth for the Applicant.
 Mr.Vijay B. Dhingre for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
 Mr.S.S. Pednekar, APP for the State.

¶6

CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.

¶7

DATED : OCTOBER 13, 2008

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant and Counsel for
 the respondents.

¶10

 2. This is an application for condonation of delay
 of 5 days in filing the application for leave to file
 appeal.

¶11

 3. It is submitted by the Counsel appearing on
 behalf of the applicant that a complaint initially was
 pending before the learned Magistrate, 4th Court at
 Girgaon, Mumbai and later on, it was transferred to the
 Special Court of the learned Magistrate of the Small

¶12

 - 2 -

¶13

 Causes Court, Mumbai and the complaint was newly

¶14

 numbered as 311/SS/06. It is submitted that the
 complaint was dismissed on 9th October, 2006. It is
 submitted that after the case was transferred to the
 Magistrate’s Court of the Small Causes Court, no notice
 was given to him. He submitted that his Advocate who
 was practising in Girgaon Court could not attend the
 matter at Small Causes Court. It is further submitted
 that on 2-3 occasions, the applicant went to the Small
 Causes Court and made enquiry there, however, he was
 informed that the papers were not being traceable. It
 is submitted that there was no wilful default or
 negligence on the part his part and that he came to know
 about the said order on or about 20th November, 2006.
 He immediately filed an application for certified copy
 on 24th November, 2006 and the copy was made available
 on 11th December, 2006. He submitted that therefore,
 delay caused may be condoned.

¶15

 4. Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed
 the said application for condonation of delay. He
 submitted that the applicant was aware that the case had

¶16

 - 3 -

¶17

 been transferred from Girgaon court to Small Causes

¶18

 Court. However, apart from making enquiries in the
 Small Causes Court, the applicant did not take any steps
 and after he came to know about impugned order on 20th
 November, 2006 after a lapse of four days, he filed an
 application for certified copy. He submitted that
 therefore, this application not be granted by this
 Court.

¶19

 5. This submission unfortunately cannot be

¶20

 accepted. The fact remains that the complaint was
 transferred from Girgaon court to Small Causes Court and
 no notice admittedly was given to the applicant and for
 the fault of the Advocate, the applicant cannot be
 penalised. The cause shown by the applicant is a
 sufficient cause and therefore, delay is liable to be
 condoned.

¶21

 6. Application is, accordingly, allowed. Delay is

¶22

 condoned. Application is disposed of.

¶23

 7. Place the application for leave on board on

¶24

 - 4 -

¶25

 Monday, 20th October, 2008. High on Board.

¶26

(V.M. KANADE, J.)

Chunilal R. Shah v. M/S. Panchavati Valves and Flanges Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chunilal R. Shah v. M/S. Panchavati Valves and Flanges Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.P.Jadhav Vs Precision Pressings and Ors.

J.P.Jadhav Vs Precision Pressings and Ors.

Shetkari Sahkari Sangh Ltd. Vs Dilip Jaywantrao Hire and Anr.

Ishwarbhai Hiradas Patel Vs Rajesh Bhatia and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Subhash Tukaram Potadar

Laxman Manohar Divekar Vs Rajiv Vitthal Khopade and Anr.