Dismissed

Shrinivas Oil Mills, through Prop. Shri. Mahankali Jagannath Yeldi v. Central Bank of India, through Branch Manager and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Aug 2014WP/1545/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a DRAT order dismissing an application for condonation of delay. The court found no infirmity in the DRAT's reasons as the petitioner unconditionally withdrew the original appeal before the delay occurred, thereby forfeiting the right to condonation.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shrinivas Oil Mills, through Prop. Shri. Mahankali… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

(WP 1545 of 2014)

vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 1545 OF 2014

¶6

Shrinivas Oil Mills ...Petitioner Vs. Central Bank of India and Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

¶8

Mr. N.J. Patil i/b. Mr. S.P. Page for Petitioner

¶9

Ms. Mansi Patel i/b. M/s. Thakore Jariwalla and Associates for Respondent No.1 Mr.S.S. Patwardhan for Respondent No.2 Mr. I.M. Khairdi for Respondent No.3 Mr.Aparna Shinde for Respondent No.4

¶10

Mr. C.M. Lokesh with Ms. Vaibhavi Gole i/b. Mr.A.R. Bole For Respondent No.7 **********

¶11

CORAM : V. M. KANADE , & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 27, 2014 P.C. :

¶12

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. This petition is filed by the Petitioner for challenging the order passed by the DRAT dated 13.1.2013 in Misc. Application No. 220 of 2008 in Review Application No.1 of 2008, dismissing the condonation of delay.

¶13

It is an admitted position that there is a delay of 463 days in filing an application. The appeal filed by the Petitioner was withdrawn by him unconditionally and at that time, the Petitioner was proceeded

1/3

(WP 1545 of 2014)

before the DRAT and almost after 463 days, an application for review has been filed and in that application, application for condonation of delay was filed. The DRAT has observed that no sufficient cause has been shown for the delay and explanation given by the Petitioner was not accepted.

¶18

We have perused the impugned order. We have noticed that the Court has taken into consideration the explanation given by the Petitioner and came to the conclusion that the said cause is not sufficient cause since no documents in support of the said submission have been produced. It is submitted that the Petitioner was not having good health on account of depression and, therefore, he has not filed the application. The Petitioner has produced the medical report. It is submitted that the Petitioner has withdrawn the appeal before the DRAT on account of assurance being given by the Bank Officer that upon payment of Rs.22 lacs, they will issue the 'No Dues Certificate'. It is submitted that despite the Petitioner having paid Rs.22 lacs, 'No Dues Certificate' has not been issued by the Bank. The Petitioner,thereafter, filed a petition in this Court and the said writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter the Petitioner had filed the review petition. It is submitted that the explanation given by the Petitioner for delay caused in approaching this Court was not taken into consideration. The said submission cannot be accepted. The fact remains that the Petitioner even thereafter filed a suit against the Bank for recovery of the amount of Rs.22 lacs from the Bank and he is the lawful owner of the property.

¶19

In our view, the Petitioner, therefore, is availed the remedy which has been available to him and unconditionally withdrawn the

2/3

(WP 1545 of 2014)

review and, thereafter, almost after 463 days, has filed this review petition. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no infirmity in the reasons given by the DRAT in dismissing the application for condonation of delay. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain this petition while exercising our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is dismissed.

¶24

Vaishali Tikam

¶25

3/3

Shrinivas Oil Mills, through Prop. Shri. Mahankali Jagannath Yeldi v. Central Bank of India, through Branch Manager and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shrinivas Oil Mills, through Prop. Shri. Mahankali Jagannath Yeldi v. Central Bank of India, through Branch Manager and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshminarayan Kala, Krida Sanskrutik and Sanskrutik Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Viky Raju Kapse Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sinhgad Technical Education Society and Other Vs Dr Vijay Kumar Gavit and Others

Mallikarjun Ramgondappa Patil Vs Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Tirupati Pratishtan'S Andhori Vs J. S. Sahariya, Secretary and Ors.

Shrinivas Oil Mills, through Prop. Shri. Mahankali Jagannath Yeldi Vs Central Bank of India, through Branch Manager and Ors.