Dismissed

Manohar Kishanrao Wankhede v. the Chairman and Managing Director Central Bank of India Mumbai

Bombay HC1 Oct 2019CA/11801/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An applicant sought condonation of a delay of nearly two-and-a-half years to file a civil application for restoration of a writ petition dismissed for want of prosecution. Dismissed for want of prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The civil application for condonation of delay and restoration of the writ petition is dismissed.

Manohar Kishanrao Wankhede Vs the Chairman and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

11801.19ca

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11801 OF 2019 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.12339 OF 2015

¶6

Manohar s/o Kisanrao Wankhede
Age: 60 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Jyotinagar, Aurangabad
Tq. & Dist. AurangabadAPPLICANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The Chairman and Managing Director,
Central Bank of India,
Fort, MumbaiRESPONDENT

¶9

Mr Harshad H. Padalkar, Advocate for the applicant;
Mr S.V. Warad, Advocate for respondent sole

¶10

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

¶11

DATED :1st OCTOBER, 2019

¶12

ORAL ORDER:

¶13

This is an application seeking condonation of

¶14

delay of 2 years and 328 days caused in filing the

¶15

application, whereby restoration of the petition is
prayed.

¶16

2.By order dated 5th August, 2016, the Division

¶17

Bench of this Court was pleased to dismiss the petition

¶18

for want of prosecution. Learned Counsel for the applicant made an attempt to submit before this Court that the delay caused is for bona fide reason and same was unintentional. Perusal of the order sheet shows that the petition was filed in the year 2015. The petitioner was an employee of the financial institution, namely, Central Bank of India and was subjected to a Departmental Enquiry, wherein punishment was awarded to the petitioner on serious charges.

¶19

3.Being aggrieved by the said order, the

¶20

petitioner approached the reviewing authority. The
reviewing authority, by order dated 17th June, 2015 found
no favour with the petitioner. Resultantly, final order
of the disciplinary authority, which was modified by the
appellate authority, was confirmed, which was then

¶21

impugned in the writ petition.

¶22

4.Initially, notices were issued by this Court. In
spite of notices being issued, office objections were not
removed within stipulated period and by grant of
opportunity of extended period, the objections were
removed and the matter was placed before the Division
Bench of this Court. On 5th August, 2016 as none appeared
before this Court for the petitioner nor a request was
made either for keeping back the petition or for an
adjournment, the Division Bench of this Court was left

¶23

with no choice but to dismiss the petition for want of
prosecution.

¶24

5On the backdrop of these facts, the reason

¶25

assigned for condonation of delay in the application is

¶26

as cryptic as it could be and same finds place in
paragraph-5 of the application. It is stated in the
application in one sentence that the Counsel who was

¶27

requested to do so by the Counsel for the petitioner,
could not attend the matter and then it is stated in
paragraph-5 as under :

¶28

“5.That, thereafter, the advocate of the
applicant when came to know about dismissal of
the writ petition No.12339/2015 for want of
prosecution, he immediately informed the
advocate clerk and instructed him to file the
Civil Application for restoration.

¶29

That, at this point of time, the
advocate of the applicant was under bonafide
impression that, the Civil Application which
was drafted is being presented to the Hon’ble
High Court, but factual position was
otherwise. It is under this background, the
delay in filing restoration application has
occurred which is required to be considered
otherwise, very purpose of filing writ
petition would stand frustrated. The
applicant’s important service rights are
involved and therefore, the present Civil
Application is required to be granted.”

¶30

6.Thus, considering the reason assigned, by any

¶31

angle, this Court is unable to arrive at a conclusion
that inordinate delay of 2 years and 328 days was for

¶32

some reason which could be considered as bona fide or of such a nature which would have prevented the Counsel to take necessary steps within reasonable period and only statement that Counsel had instructed his Clerk and Clerk failed to take necessary steps, cannot, by any stretch be treated as bona fide reason.

¶33

7.Considering all these facts, we are of the

¶34

opinion that the application is thoroughly meritless and
deserves to be dismissed at the threshold and same is

¶35

accordingly dismissed.

¶36

 [AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE,J.]

¶37

Tupe

Manohar Kishanrao Wankhede v. the Chairman and Managing Director Central Bank of India Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Kishanrao Wankhede v. the Chairman and Managing Director Central Bank of India Mumbai

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

Pandurang Rambhau Gitte Vs Vandana Krishna and Others

Nusaratjahan Mohammad Maqsood Vs Surajprasad Jaiswal and Others

Pravin Vishwanath Khalatkar Vs Sanjay S Kadam and Another

Govind Keshav Nikam and Another Vs Uday Chaudhari

Rajendra Gangadhar Bhujbal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Indira Education and Welfare Society Parbhani Thr Secretary Vs Najmunnisa Begum Abdul Sattar and Another