Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Uday Vasant Barve and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Jun 2011APPLN/139/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Application sought condonation of 416 days delay for filing leave to appeal against dismissal of a complaint under Section 138 NI Act. The Court allowed the application due to loss of papers and other reasons, directing deposit of Rs.5,000 costs attributable to the applicant, clarifying assets cannot be charged on respondent's loan account.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed subject to deposit of Rs.5,000 costs to respondent No.1, with costs recoverable only from Applicant.

Bank of Maharashtra Vs Uday Vasant Barve and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2011)

appln 139 of 2011

vks

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 139 OF 2011

¶6

Bank of Maharashtra .. Applicant -versus Uday Barve .. Respondent.

¶7

Ms. Veena Kamble, for the Applicant.

¶8

Mr. A.A. Desai, for respondent No.1.

¶9

Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the Respondent State.

¶10

CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 22nd June, 2011

¶11

P.C.

¶12

This is an application for condonation of 416 days delay in filing application for leave to file appeal against dismissal of complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 6^th Court, Mumbai. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the order was passed on 31^st July, 2009. The applicant bank came to know this dismissal only in August or September, 2009. Certified copy was applied on 16^th September, 2009 and it was made available on 7^th November, 2009. Thereafter the advocate lost all the papers in a taxi and again applied for certified copy on 7^th December, 2009. Certified copy was received on 7^th June, 2010. Thereafter for various reasons such as marriage in the family

¶13

2 appln 139 of 2011

¶14

and hospitalization, application for leave to appeal was not filed. It was filed only on 30^th October, 2010. Though the learned counsel for respondent has a very strong objection which is not without substance. Since the reasons for delay are attributable to the advocate, application is allowed subject to applicant’s depositing costs of Rs.5,000/- for being paid to respondent No.1. It is clarified that since the costs are solely on account of lapses of applicant bank that they cannot be charged on the loan account of respondent Eventually if the costs are not deposited within two weeks, the application would be dismissed for default without further reference to the Court.

¶15

If the costs are paid, respondent No.1 would be at liberty to receive the same from Registry.

¶16

If the costs are so paid, list application for leave to appeal in a week thereafter i.e. on 13.7.2011.

¶17

(R. C. CHAVAN, J.)

Bank of Maharashtra v. Uday Vasant Barve and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Uday Vasant Barve and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dnyaneshwar @ Rajendra Sakharam Walekar

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sunil @ Balu Kondiba Bhandirge and Ors.

Ashok Kisan Navale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivaji Dinkarrao Jadhav Vs Laxman Shankar Jadhav and Anr.

Naresh Thakurdas Raisinghani Vs Manish Arora and Anr.

Ashtech Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Home Trade Limited and Ors.