Disposed

Sandip Harishchandra Devidas v. the Gokul Urban Cooperative Credit Soc. Ltd. Rep. by Authorised Officer Narayan Valavikar and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Jun 2024CRMA/45/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision application, the applicant, a truck driver, sought to condone a 63-day delay in filing the revision, attributing it to being out of state and lack of legal aid delay. On extraordinary, the court accepted the reasons for the delay.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of a 63-day delay in filing the criminal revision application.

Sandip Harishchandra Devidas Vs the Gokul Urban… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

CRMA 45 of 2024

¶2

shakuntala

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.45 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.220 OF 2024 (F) SANDIP HARISHCHANDRA DEVIDAS ... APPLICANT Versus

¶5

THE GOKUL URBAN COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOC. LTD REP. BY AUTHORISED OFFICER NARAYAN VALAVIKAR AND ANR ... RESPONDENTS

¶6

Mr Abhishek Sawant, Advocate for the applicant. Mr Somnath Karpe, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2.

¶7

CORAM:- BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.

¶8

DATED :- 18th June, 2024

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard Mr. Sawant learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Karpe learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent.

¶11

Even though Respondent No.1 is duly served and the affidavit of service is placed on record, no one appeared on behalf of Respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr. Sawant would submit that the Applicant being a Truck Driver was out of State for the purpose of transporting material when the impugned order was passed and he was not aware of the disposal of such proceedings. On his return, he contacted his advocate and only thereafter he found that the matter was disposed of.

Page 1 of 2

18th June, 2024

CRMA 45 of 2024

Mr. Sawant submits that the Applicant who is a Driver by profession approached the Goa State Legal Authority for legal aid.

¶17

Accordingly, there is a delay of 63 days in filing the present revision.

¶18

He submits that the delay is not deliberate but due to reasons mentioned in the Application.

¶19

Though Respondent No. 1 is duly served no one appeared and contested the Application.

¶20

Mr. Karpe Addl. Public Prosecutor who appears for the State is a formal party.

¶21

The reasons disclosed in the Application supported by an affidavit is sufficient enough to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 63 days in filing of the present revision stands condoned.

¶22

Application stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶23

BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.

¶24

Page 2 of 2

¶25

18th June, 2024

Sandip Harishchandra Devidas v. the Gokul Urban Cooperative Credit Soc. Ltd. Rep. by Authorised Officer Narayan Valavikar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Harishchandra Devidas v. the Gokul Urban Cooperative Credit Soc. Ltd. Rep. by Authorised Officer Narayan Valavikar and Anr.

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

Dr. Ajay Govind Kudchadkar Vs Bhaskar Prabhakar Rivonkar and Anr.

William Prisco Rodrigues Vs Jose Remedios Rodrigues and 14 Ors.

Carlos Tavora Vs Frederick C. D' Souza.

Savitha Adhikari Vs Shekar S. Shinde

Nilesh M. Mahatme Thr Attorney Dileep Bhairao Mahatme Vs Tejaswini Mahatme and 4 Ors.

The Old Goa Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Thr. Recovery Officer Kajol a. Naik Vs Kishore Uttam Raut and Anr.