Allowed

Mr. Rakesh Kambli. v. Mr. Ajit Tari and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Jul 2015CRMA/15/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Goa entertained an application for condonation of delay of over three years in challenging an order refusing registration of a leave-to-appeal document due to non-compliance with objections, linking it to a previously admitted appeal on similar facts between the same parties.

What did the court decide?

Stamp number registered subject to deposit of Rs.5,000/- with the Goa State Legal Services Authority within one week.

Mr. Rakesh Kambli. Vs Mr. Ajit Tari and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2015

¶2

¶3

STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 109 OF 2015

¶4

MR. RAKESH KAMBLI. ... Applicant Versus MR. AJIT TARI AND ANR., ... Respondents

¶5

Mr. S. Saudagar, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Sneha Shetye, Advocate for the respondents.

¶6

Coram:C. V. BHADANG, J.

¶7

Date:7th July, 2015

¶8

P.C.

¶9

This is an application for condonation of delay of 3 years 33 days in challenging the order dated 9 December 2011 of the Registrar, refusing registration of Stamp (main) No.1138 of 2011. Stamp (main) No.1138 of 2011 was an application for leave to appeal against acquittal, which was rejected on account of the non-compliance with certain office objections.

¶10

It is submitted that there is another appeal against acquittal, filed by the applicant against the respondents in respect of another cheque, that appeal is already admitted. The sole ground urged is that the applicant would under impression that both these appeals were admitted. However, when it was learnt that the present application was rejected for want of compliance with some objections, there was already a substantial delay, which according to the applicant is

¶11

CRMA/15/2015

¶12

¶13

neither out of negligence nor on account of lack of diligence. The prayer is opposed on behalf of the respondents on the ground that there is gross delay.

¶14

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that by an order dated 9 December 2011 passed by the Registrar, the registration of the Stamp (main) No.1138 of 2011 was refused. It is undisputed that there is a connected appeal in respect of the dishonour of some other cheques, between the same parties, which was filed and which is admitted. On consideration of the overall circumstances and the fact that the application was rejected at the stage of registration itself, the delay in filing the revision application is condoned subject to the applicant depositing an amount of Rs.5,000/- with the Goa State Legal Services Authority, within a period of one week.

¶15

Let the Stamp (main) number be registered.

¶16

Criminal Misc. Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶17

C. V. BHADANG, J.

¶18

ssk

Mr. Rakesh Kambli. v. Mr. Ajit Tari and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Rakesh Kambli. v. Mr. Ajit Tari and Anr.

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

Idbi Bank Limited by Its Constituted Attorney and Branch Head Mr. Anant Yeshwant Dhond. Vs State of Goa, by Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Mrs. Jayashri N. Rajebhosle @ Bimabai Rauji Rane Sardessai through Poa Shri Bhupendrasinh Rajebhosa Vs Vijay Raghoba Gaonkar and 2 Ors.

Mr. Dajvip v. Patkar. Vs Mrs. Vina D. Patkar.

Mr.Rakesh Kambli. Vs Mr. Ajit Tari and Anr.

Savita Satchit Uskaikar and 14 Ors., Vs Mithun Mauli Uskaikar.

Smt. Kusum Yeshwant Kamat and 2 Ors., Vs Smt. Shalini Sagoon Kamat through Her Constituted Attorney Smt. Padma Bhale