Allowed

Prafulla S/O Narendra Watane v. Uniqu Institute of Higher Learning Private Limited (Directors of the Unique Academy, Pune) and 3

Bombay HC8 Feb 2022APPA/568/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench allowed this application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The court relied on a Supreme Court direction excluding the pandemic period for limitation calculations and directed the Registry to register the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The delay in preferring the appeal was condoned, and the Registry was directed to register the appeal.

Prafulla S/O Narendra Watane Vs Uniqu Institute of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

8appa568.21.odt

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 568/2021

¶5

(Mr. Prafulla S/o Narendra Watane Vs. Unique Institute Learning
Private Ltd. & ors.)

¶6

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order

¶7

Mr. S. Baban, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. S. D. Sirpurkar, APP for respondent No. 5/State.

¶8

CORAM:- SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.

¶9

DATED :- 08.02.2022

¶10

Hearing was conducted through Video
Conferencing and the learned Counsel agreed that the
audio and visual quality was proper.

¶11

2.This is an application for condonation of
delay in prefering appeal before this Court. It is
contended that the applicant filed complaint bearing
MCA No. 3147/2017 which was dismissed on
18.02.2020. The applicant applied for certified copy of
the order on 25.02.2020. He received the copy of
impugned order on 19.03.2020. However, due to
pandemic situation, he could not prefer appeal against
the impugned order. It is also contended that on wrong
advise, the applicant preferred the appeal before the
District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Ultimately, it came
to be withdrawn and the applicant approached this Court

¶12

Gohane

¶13

¶14

8appa568.21.odt

¶15

with present application.

¶16

3.Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
He submits that the applicant could not prefer appeal in
time due to pandemic situation. He also submits that in
view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Miscellaneous Application No. 21/2022 in Miscellaneous
Application No. 665/2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.
3/2020, it is submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has
extended period of limitation from 15.03.2020 til
28.02.2022. Perused the order the Hon’ble Apex Court
wherein following directions are issued :-

¶17

“(I)The order dated 23.03.2020 is
restored and in continuation of the
subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021,
27.04.2021 and 23.09.23021, it is
directed that the period from
15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand
excluded for the purposes of limitation
as may be prescribed under any general
or special laws in respect of all judicial
or quasi-judical proceedings.

¶18

(II)Consequently, the balance period
of limitation remaining as on
03.10.2021, if any, shall become
available with effect from 01.03.2022.

¶19

Gohane

¶20

¶21

8appa568.21.odt

¶22

(III)In cases where the limitation
would have expired during the period
between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022,
notwithstanding the actual balance
period of limitation remaining, all
persons shall have a limitation period of
90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event,
the actual balance period of limitation
remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022
is greater than 90 days, that longer
period shall apply.

¶23

(IV)It is further clarified that the
period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022
shall also stand excluded in computing
the periods prescribed under Sections
23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and
proviso (b) and (c) of Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
and any other laws, which prescribe
period(s) of limitation for instituting
proceedings, outer limits (within which
the court or tribunal can condone
delay) and termination of proceedings.”

¶24

In view of reasons given in para 3 and 4 in

¶25

4.

¶26

Gohane

¶27

4 8appa568.21.odt

¶28

the application and direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court,
in my opinion, the application is required to be allowed.

¶29

5. Application stands allowed and disposed of.

¶30

6. The delay in preferring the appeal is hereby

¶31

condoned.

¶32

7. The Registry is directed to register the

¶33

appeal.

¶34

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. /2022 .

¶35

1.Issue notice to the respondents returnable
after four weeks.

¶36

2.Learned APP waives service of notice for
respondent No. 5.

¶37

 (SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J)

¶38

Digitally
signed by
JITENDRA
JITENDRA BHARAT
BHARAT GOHANE
GOHANE Date:
2022.02.09
16:18:56
+0530

¶39

Gohane

Prafulla S/O Narendra Watane v. Uniqu Institute of Higher Learning Private Limited (Directors of the Unique Academy, Pune) and 3

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prafulla S/O Narendra Watane v. Uniqu Institute of Higher Learning Private Limited (Directors of the Unique Academy, Pune) and 3

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunal @ Kundan S/O Dhammapal @ Sunil Gopnarayan Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Midc Tq. and Dist.Akola

Vijaykumar S/O. Vasudev Yergude Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Sindewahi Tq. Sindewahi Dist. Chandrapur

Khilesh S/O Bijendra Shahu Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., P.S., Kalmeshwar, Dist. Nagpur

Swapnil S/O Gopinath Pawar and 3 Others Vs State of Mha. Thr. Pso Anjangaon Tq. Anjangaon Surji Dist.Amravati

Ravindra S/O Kesharao Mendhe Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps Ner, Tah. Ner, Dist. Yavatmal and 2 Others

Akshay S/O Dnyaneshwar Rankhamb Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Wadgaon Road Police Station, Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal and Another