Allowed

Sau. Chetna Sujit Patil @ Chetna Suresh Keni v. Sujit Motiram Patil

Bombay HC7 Dec 2023IA/736/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned a delay of 649 days in filing a Family Court Appeal. The court held that sufficient cause was made out for condonation based on the applicant's reliance on Supreme Court orders regarding the discrepancy in time caused by the coronavirus pandemic, allowing the appeal to proceed for hearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the appeal is condoned; appeal to be numbered subject to removal of objections within six weeks.

Sau. Chetna Sujit Patil @ Chetna Suresh Keni Vs Sujit… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

16-ia-736-2021-fcast-3076-2021.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by SHRADDHA SHRADDHA KAMLESH KAMLESH TALEKAR TALEKAR Date: 2023.12.12 18:34:16 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 736 OF 2021 (For Condonation of Delay) WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 737 OF 2021 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (L. ) 3076 OF 2021

¶5

Sau. Chetna Sujit Patil @ Chetna Suresh Keni

¶6

.. Applicant / Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sujit Motiram Patil …Respondent

¶9

Mr.Sanjay Sawant a/w. Shubhangi Vaidya, Advocate for Applicant in both Applications.

¶10

Mr.Avinash Fatangare, Advocate for Respondent.

¶11

CORAM : B.P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.

¶12

DATE : DECEMBER 07, 2023.

¶13

P C :

¶14

Interim Application No. 736 of 2021 is filed seeking a condonation

¶15

of delay of 649 days in filing the above Family Court Appeal. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that the delay actually is much less because the period during the Corona Virus has to be excluded as per the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶16

Page 1 of 2 DECEMBER 07, 2023

¶17

Shraddha Talekar, PS

¶18

16-ia-736-2021-fcast-3076-2021.doc

¶19

We are of the view that sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay for the reasons stated in the Interim Application. Accordingly, the same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads thus :

¶20

(a) Condone delay of 649 days in filin g the present Family Court Appeal and the same may be heard on merits.

¶21

The Interim Application is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶22

Now that we have condoned the delay, the Registry is directed to number the above Appeal, subject to the Appellant removing all other office objections within a period of six weeks from today. In the event, the office objections are not removed within the stipulated period, the Appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to this Court.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

Page 2 of 2 DECEMBER 07, 2023

¶26

Shraddha Talekar, PS

Sau. Chetna Sujit Patil @ Chetna Suresh Keni v. Sujit Motiram Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau. Chetna Sujit Patil @ Chetna Suresh Keni v. Sujit Motiram Patil

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

Meena Raghavendra Joshi vs Idbi Bank Limited and 5 Ors.

Khadkeshwar Hatcheries Ltd. and 2 Ors. vs Idbi Bank Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Bindu Ajay Bhatt vs the Board of Directors of Chembur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Manoj Keru Bhosale and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary and Ors.

Deep Motors Gallery and Ors. Vs Rbl Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Shri Samarth Paper and Board Mill Throu.Its Partners Vijay Arjundas Gurwada and Ors. Vs Bank of India Thoru. Its Authorised Officer Mohol Branch and Ors.