Allowed

New Steel Trading Private Limited v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Sept 2019APPA/958/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay allowed an application to recall an order dismissing a Criminal Appeal in default. The Court restored Criminal Appeal No.411 of 2018 to the file and directed the appellant to remove all office objections within three weeks. Applicant’s counsel requested two weeks but the Court allowed three weeks. Non-appearance of Respondent No.4 was excused as their notice was not served

What did the court decide?

Order dated 29th March 2019 recalled; Criminal Appeal No.411 of 2018 restored; Appellant directed to remove office objections within 3 weeks.

New Steel Trading Private Limited Vs the State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(4)APPANo.9582019.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.958 OF 2019 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.411 OF 2018

¶6

New Steel Trading Private Limited ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr.Adithya R. Iyer i/b. Mr.Ashish S. Chavan, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶8

Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, APP for Respondent No.1/State.

¶9

Mr.A.P.Steenson i/b. APS Law Associates, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶10

CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.

¶11

DATED : 17^th SEPTEMBER 2019.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1 Heard the learned Counsels appearing for the applicant as well as respondent Nos.1 to 3. None appears for the respondent No.4 probably because notice seems to be not served on respondent No.4 as yet. However, it is seen from the Order dated 20^th March 2018 passed by this Court while admitting the appeal that respondent No.4 did not enter any appearance despite service at that point of time. Hence, for considering this

¶14

1/3

¶15

Gaikwad RD

¶16

(4)APPANo.9582019.odt

¶17

application for restoration of the appeal, appearance of respondent No.4 is not necessary.

¶18

2 The appeal challenging acquittal of respondent Nos.2 to 4 came to be admitted by this Court, but subsequently it was dismissed in default as some offence objections were not removed. This was done in pursuant to the Order dated 29^th March 2019 passed by this Court.

¶19

3 The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that he will remove all office objections within a period of two weeks from today.

¶20

4 The learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 opposed the application by contending that office objections ought to have been removed within the time prescribed by this Court vide its Order dated 29^th March 2019.

¶21

5 Primary function of the Court is to adjudicate the disputes on their own merits rather to adhering to technicality of law. Admitted appeal ought not to have been dismissed merely because some office objections were not removed. The applicant has demonstrated the reason for not removing the offence objections. It is pointed out that in connected appeal, the offence objections were duly removed within the prescribed time.

¶22

2/3

¶23

Gaikwad RD

¶24

(4)APPANo.9582019.odt

¶25

6 In this view of the matter, the application deserves to be allowed and as such, the following Order :

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(i) The Order dated 29^th March 2019 is recalled by condoning the delay in filing the instant application and Criminal Appeal No.411 of 2018 is restored to the file.

¶28

(ii) The applicant/appellant to remove all office objections in Criminal Appeal No.411 of 2018 within a period of three weeks from today.

¶29

3/3

¶30

Gaikwad RD

New Steel Trading Private Limited v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New Steel Trading Private Limited v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Barkebai Rajaram Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bablu Shoukat Kalal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Maiku Kanojiya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Barkya @ Barku Dagadu Hilam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prabhakar Mahadu Mukne Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Vishnu Mukane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra