Allowed

Bharti Infotel Ltd. v. R.K.Mhatre

Bombay HC1 Oct 2010WP/1177/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court condoned a delay in filing a Criminal Revision by directing the petitioners to pay costs to the respondent. Upon proof of payment, the lower court must dispose of the revision.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in Criminal Revision on payment of Rs. 5000 to Respondent No. 1; stay on Magistrate proceedings and warrants.

Bharti Infotel Ltd. Vs R.K.Mhatre — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

cr wp 1177-10.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1177 OF 2010

¶5

Bharti Infotel Ltd & Ors.. Petitioners

¶6

Vs

¶7

R.K. Mhatre & Anr.. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Prakash Naik a/w Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal & Mr. Pawan Mali i/b
Rajesh Desai for the Petitioners

¶9

Dr. Pallavi Divekar for Respondent No. 1

¶10

Ms. U.V. Kejarival, APP for the State

¶11

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J

¶12

DATE : 1st OCTOBER, 2010.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent-Security Guard Board and learned APP for the State.

¶15

2. Complaint was filed against the petitioners under Clause 42 for contravention of Clause 13(1)(C) of the Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Scheme - 2002 read with Section 3(3) of Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Act 1981. The complaint was numbered as CC No.

¶16

3051/SS/2005 and it is pending before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Estate,

¶17

¶18

cr wp 1177-10.doc

¶19

Mumbai. In the said case, process came to be issued
against the petitioners. Being aggrieved thereby, the
petitioners preferred Revision before the Sessions Court.
As there was delay in preferring the said Revision, Misc.
Application No. 1358 of 2009 came to be preferred by the
petitioners for condonation of delay. The Learned
Sessions Judge observed that there is delay of 79 days in
filing the revision, however, the reasons given for
condonation of delay were vague and as according to him,
the applicants failed to make out any sufficient cause,
hence, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the application
for condonation of delay by order dated 28th January 2010.
Being aggrieved by the said order, this petition has been
preferred.

¶20

3. In my view, the following order shall meet the ends of justice:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

1. Delay is condoned on costs quantified at Rs. 5000/being paid to Respondent No. 1.

¶23

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the cost will be directly handed over by cheque to the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 within a period of 10 days from today.

¶24

3. On proof of costs being paid, learned Sessions Judge to dispose of the Criminal Revision Application in

¶25

¶26

cr wp 1177-10.doc

¶27

accordance with law.

¶28

4. Till the Sessions Court disposes of the C.R.A., the proceedings before the learned Magistrate and the bailable warrants issued against the petitioners are stayed.

¶29

5. Application is disposed of in above terms.

¶30

 [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]

¶31

Bharti Infotel Ltd. v. R.K.Mhatre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharti Infotel Ltd. v. R.K.Mhatre

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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ajit Raosaheb Jadhav

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vijay Kashiram Kumbhar and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Prakash Dhondiram Magdum

Harishchandra Khopte Vs State of Maharashtra

Guddu @ Mudassar Munawar Majid Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Y. Kunjappan and Anr. Vs Chitralekha Tarachand Anandi and Anr.