Allowed

Payal Sinha v. Prashant Saxena

Bombay HC22 Dec 2023IA/16650/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench granted an interim application condoning an 88-day delay in filing a Family Court Appeal. The court satisfied itself of due service and discharged on the requirements for condonation. The main appeal is remitted for registration within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Interim application for condonation of delay of 88 days in filing Family Court Appeal allowed. Appeal remitted to Registry for numbering within 4 weeks.

Payal Sinha Vs Prashant Saxena — Bombay HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

UTKARSH KAKASAHEB BHALERAO

¶2

9.ia.16650.2023.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16650 OF 2023

¶5

¶6

FAMILY COURT APPEAL (ST) NO.29092 OF 2023 IN

¶7

PETITION NO.A-1209 OF 2020

¶8

Payal Sinha .. Applicant

¶9

Digitally signed by UTKARSH KAKASAHEB BHALERAO Date: 2023.12.29 10:57:46 +0530

¶10

In the matter between: Payal Sinha .. Appellant (Org.Petitioner)

¶11

Versus

¶12

Prashant Saxena .. Respondent (Org.Respondent)

¶13

Mr.Kunal Bhange a/w Mr.Yash Joglekar, Advocate for the Appellant/Applicant.

¶14

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA &

¶15

SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 22, 2023

¶16

P. C.

¶17

1. The above Interim Application is filed seeking a condonation of delay of 88 days in filing the above Family Court Appeal.

Page 1 of 3

Utkarsh

DECEMBER 22, 2023

9.ia.16650.2023.doc

2. When the above matter had come up on 10^th November,

¶23

2023 the office was directed to issue notice to the Respondent. In addition to the Court notice the Appellant was permitted to serve the Respondent by private notice as well as by e-mail mentioned in the cause title of the above Application.

¶24

3. Today when the matter is called out, we noticed that the acknowledgment of the Court notice is yet to be served. However, the Appellant has filed an affidavit of received dated 5^th December, 2023 evidencing the service of the above Family Court Appeal as well as the Interim Application on Respondent-Husband by e-mail.

¶25

4. We are satisfied that the Respondent has been duly served. Despite service none have appeared on behalf of the RespondentHusband.

¶26

5. After hearing the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant we are satisfied that the sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay. In these circumstances, the above Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus:-

¶27

Page 2 of 3 DECEMBER 22, 2023

¶28

Utkarsh

¶29

9.ia.16650.2023.doc

¶30

"(a) That the delay of 88 days in filing the present Family Court Appeal may be condone;"

¶31

6. The above Interim Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

7. Considering that the delay has been condoned the Registry shall now proceed to number the above Family Court Appeal subject to the Applicant/Appellant removing all other office objections within a period of 4 weeks from today, failing which the above Appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.

¶33

8. Place the above Family Court Appeal on board for directions on 19^th January, 2024.

¶34

9. The advocates for the Appellant shall serve copy of this order on the Respondent-Husband by e-mail.

¶35

10. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶36

[SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN,J.] [B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶37

Page 3 of 3

¶38

DECEMBER 22, 2023

¶39

Utkarsh

Payal Sinha v. Prashant Saxena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Payal Sinha v. Prashant Saxena

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

Madhuri Amit Mhetras Vs Amit Balasaheb Mhetras

J. M. Mhatre Charitable Sanstha Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs State of Maharashtra

Nikhila Devdutt Deshpande vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. through Authorized Officer

M. S. Shah and Associates vs the National Co-Operative Construction and Development Federation of India

Mahendra Realtors and Infrastructure Private Limited vs the National Co-Operative Construction and Development Federation of India