Dismissed

Lomesh Tukaramji Shendre v. Shri Sheshrao Ramaji Manmode and Another

Bombay HC26 Mar 2012APPA/611/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, dismissed a criminal application seeking leave to appeal against an order of acquittal under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that the applicant failed to explain the 248-day delay satisfactorily, noting his age and illiteracy were not valid excuses. The applicant’s non-filing of evidence indicated he did not believe he would succ

What did the court decide?

Application seeking leave to appeal was dismissed as the applicant failed to make out sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 248 days.

Lomesh Tukaramji Shendre Vs Shri Sheshrao Ramaji Manmode and… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶3

Criminal Application (APPA) No. 611 of 2011 Lomeshwar v. Sheshrao and anr

¶4

¶5

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶6

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶7

Mr S. B. Bangde, Adv for applicant Mr Bhushan Mohta, Adv for respdt no.1 Ms Nandita Dubey, APP for respdt no.2 Coram: A. P. Bhangale, J Dated: 26^th March 2012

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Applicant is praying for condonation of delay of 248 days caused in filing application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by 24^th JMFC (Special Court u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act), Nagpur in Summary Criminal Case No. 16615 of 2009.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant (original complainant) submits that applicant is aged about 82 years; he is illiterate and was absolutely unaware about the period within which the appeal was required to be filed. . 3. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1, on the other hand, submits that applicant is a court bird.

¶10

¶11

He is carrying money-lending business illegally by charging exorbitant rate of interest with a view grab lands of poor farmers by indulging into sham and frivolous litigations. He submits that ignorance of law is no valid excuse.

¶12

I have gone through the judgment and order sought to be impugned. The Special Court has rendered the “oral judgment” and in the operative portion (clause-3), the Court has observed that the judgment was pronounced in the Court in presence of all. It is thus obvious that the applicant was very much present in the Court and on the date of judgment itself i.e. on 6^th September 2010 he became aware that his complaint had been dismissed by the Special Court. There is no doubt that the expression “sufficient” has always been construed liberally and in doing so, it is not the length of the delay which matters, but the explanation offered in support thereof. However, this does not mean that the Court should readily accept whatever is stated by the party to explain his default. Sufficient cause cannot be condoned on sympathetic grounds when delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained as stated by the Apex Court in D. Gopinathan Pillai v. State of Kerala & anr reported in AIR 2007 SC 2624.

¶13

Apart from the above, the Special Court has recorded a finding that applicant-complainant is engaged in money-lending business without licence.

¶14

¶15

It has been further found by the Special Court that the applicant was indulging into suppression of material facts and that he was playing hide and seek. Complainant initially denied that he had filed complaints under Section 138 against one Haridas Dongre and Prabhakar and when he was confronted with certified copies of complaints, he admitted the same. The Special Court further observed that complainant failed to file on record extract of 7/12 village forms showing his holding of land to the extent of 40 acres and capacity to advance huge amounts of money. The Special Court has thus dismissed the complaint of applicant-complainant by a detailed and well-reasoned order.

¶16

Since the applicant has failed to make out sufficient cause to condone the delay of 248 days caused in filing application seeking leave to appeal, APPA No. 611 of 2011 stands dismissed.

¶17

Judge

¶18

joshi

Lomesh Tukaramji Shendre v. Shri Sheshrao Ramaji Manmode and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lomesh Tukaramji Shendre v. Shri Sheshrao Ramaji Manmode and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. Thr Its Constituted Attorney Vs M.S Tk Associates, Thr Its Partner and Anor.

Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd, Thr Its Constituted Attorney Vs M/S Tk Associates, Thr Its Partner and Anor.

Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. Thr Its Constituted Attorney Vs M/S Tk Associates, Thr Its Partner and Anor.

The Lokhit Urban Co.Op. Credit Societyltd. Thr Its Officer Muniroddin Muzaffaroddin Vs Sayyad Gaffar S/O Sayyed Ahmad

Satish S/O Ramnarayan Borkar Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Kanhan

Rakesh S/O Ramji Vishwakarma Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. Ramtek Police Station