Allowed

The Aurangabad Peoples Co. Op Bank Ltd. Aurangabad through Authorised Officer v. Ramkumar Kisanlal Dongre

Bombay HC5 Aug 2011APPLN/2080/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad considered an application by the original complainant for condonation of a 202-day delay in filing a criminal application for leave to appeal. The court allowed the application, condoning the delay, but ordered the applicant to pay Rs. 2,000 as costs to the respondent within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 202 days was condoned; applicant ordered to pay Rs. 2,000 costs to respondent within three weeks.

The Aurangabad Peoples Co. Op Bank Ltd… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders.

¶3

Court's or Judge's orders

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2080 OF 2011 ,In APPLN/2078/2011

¶5

THE AURANGABAD PEOPLES CO OP BANK LTD AURANGABAD THROUGH AUTHORISED OFFICER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

RAMKUMAR KISANLAL DONGRE

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner(s) : Kale Virendra B Patel Shaikh Ashpak Taher Adv For Respt Sole

¶9

... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. Dated: August 05, 2011

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

This is an application preferred by the applicant-original complainant for condonation of delay of 202 days, caused in filing accompanying criminal application, seeking leave to file appeal.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondent, opposed present application vehemently and, submitted that present application bears no substance, same is devoid of any merits and therefore, same be rejected.

¶13

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶14

Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders.

¶15

Court's or Judge's orders

¶16

Considering the contents of the present application and also considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that there is delay of 202 days but apparently same has been explained by the applicant satisfactorily, however, simultaneously it is necessary that reasonable costs is required to be awarded to the respondent to compensate him.

¶17

In the result, present application is allowed in terms of prayer clause [B] thereof and delay of 202 days caused in filing accompanying criminal application shall stand condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- by the applicant to the respondent within the period of three weeks and present application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶18

( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. )

¶19

aaa/

¶20

The Aurangabad Peoples Co. Op Bank Ltd. Aurangabad through Authorised Officer v. Ramkumar Kisanlal Dongre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Aurangabad Peoples Co. Op Bank Ltd. Aurangabad through Authorised Officer v. Ramkumar Kisanlal Dongre

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

Yogaji Hari Bahadure and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nandkumar Rajkumar Harane Vs Vishwas Vilasrao Kshirsagar and Anr.

Kaisar Khan Rahmankhan Pathan Vs the State of Mah Thr. Psi Jafrabad and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mohamad Yousuf Mohamad Habib

Prakash Bhagwat @ Bhaskar Borhade Vs the State of Mahrashtra

The Aurangabad Peoples Co-Op Bank Ltd. Vs Ramdas Maruti Kurade