Single Judge dismissed Interim Applications seeking condonation of 10-year delay in filing 13 Civil Revision Applications. The Court held no case for condonation. Trial court hearing deferred for four weeks.
Interim Applications and Civil Revision Applications dismissed; trial court hearing deferred for four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Vinaa Khadpe 1 spk 901-IA-1365-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by VINA VINA ARVIND ARVIND KHADPE KHADPE Date: 2024.04.12 14:39:43 +0530
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1365 OF 2024
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.2894 OF 2024
Ajay Balkrishna Durve… Applicant
Vs.
Aventis Pharma Ltd.… Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1118 OF 2024
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.2514 OF 2024
Narayan Govind Naik… Applicant
Vs.
Aventis Pharma Ltd.… Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1119 OF 2024
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.2519 OF 2024
Shri Indira Tolasingh Bhandari… Applicant
Vs.
Aventis Pharma Ltd.… Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1120 OF 2024
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.2523 OF 2024
Mohan Jadhav… Applicant
Vs.
Aventis Pharma Ltd.… Respondent
This order is corrected as per the speaking to minutes of the order dated 4.4.2024.
Vinaa Khadpe
spk 901-IA-1365-2024.doc
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1121 OF 2024 IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.2526 OF 2024
Shri Mustaf Abbas Kureshi… Applicant
Vs.
Aventis Pharma Ltd.… Respondent
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1122 OF 2024 IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.2529 OF 2024
Shri Dangal Suka Pantpatil… Applicant
Vs.
Aventis Pharma Ltd.… Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1359 OF 2024
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 2881 OF 2024
Sudesh Mukund Patkar
… Applicant
Vs.
Aventis Pharma Ltd.
… Respondent
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1362 OF 2024 IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.2890 OF 2024
Shri Dhondiba Vithal Patil
… Applicant
Vs.
Aventis Pharma Ltd.… Respondent
This order is corrected as per the speaking to minutes of the order dated 4.4.2024.
Vinaa Khadpe 3 spk 901-IA-1365-2024.doc
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1364 OF 2024 IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 2900 OF 2024
K A Gondraj through Legal Heir Venugopal
Govindraj
… Applicant
Vs.
Aventis Pharma Ltd.
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1361 OF 2024
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 2902 OF 2024
Ramdas Patil
… Applicant
Vs.
Aventis Pharma Ltd.… Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1360 OF 2024 IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 2908 OF 2024
Shri Dinanath Narayan Shetye
… Applicant
Vs.
Aventis Pharma Ltd.
… Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1363 OF 2024
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 2912 OF 2024
Raymond Caitan Dcruz… Applicant
Vs.
Aventis Pharma Ltd.… Respondent
This order is corrected as per the speaking to minutes of the order dated 4.4.2024.
Vinaa Khadpe 4 spk 901-IA-1365-2024.doc
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1366 OF 2024
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 2915 OF 2024
Shri Lourdes Estevan Pais… Applicant
Vs.
Aventis Pharma Ltd.… Respondent
Mr. Pranil Sonavane a/w Mr. Raj Chourasia, Ms. Varsha
Gangawane for the Applicant in all Applications.
Ms. Nikita Vardhan i/b. Kanga & Co. for the Respondent No.1 in all
the Applications.
Mr. Pradeep Thorat a/w Ms. Aditi Naikare for the Respondent No.2
in all Applications.
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 20th MARCH, 2024
P. C. :
1.These group of 13 Civil Revision Applications has been
filed by persons who claimed themselves to be the ex-employees
of Respondent No.1-Company. The facts in all these Civil Revision
Applications are identical. Therefore, all Civil Revision
Applications are disposed of by this common order.
2.These Civil Revision Applications have been filed
against the concurrent findings recorded by the Small Causes
Court, Bombay in the proceedings filed under Section 41 of the
Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 (for short, “the Courts
This order is corrected as per the speaking to minutes of the order dated 4.4.2024.
Vinaa Khadpe 5 spk 901-IA-1365-2024.doc
Act”), along with Interim Applications to condone the delay of
almost 10 years.
3.Mr. Sonavane, learned counsel appearing for the
Applicants in all the above Applications submits that the
Applicants were in bonafide belief that at some day, they will also
be getting a new premises, like the other employees who had
received the premises pursuant to the scheme floated by
Respondent No.1-Company. He submitted that in the delay
condonation Applications, it has been specifically mentioned that
there was a delay in filing the Civil Applications. He submits that
this Court may take a liberal view and allow the Applicants to
argue the matters on merits. He further submitted that the
Applicants were tenants of Respondent No.1-Company, as also all
of them were working with Respondent No.1-Company and as of
now under the voluntary retirement scheme, they are no more in
the employment of Respondent No.1-Company. Respondent No.1-
Company, around a year back, by way of conveyance deed sold
out the properties of the Company to Respondent No.2. He further
submits that initially, Respondent No.1-Company had filed an
Application No.59 of 2000 before the Competent Authority u/s. 24
of the Maharashtra Rent Control 1999 (for short, “the Rent Act”)
He submits that in the said proceedings, the Applicants took a
stand that they were tenants and the competent authority would
have no jurisdiction to try and entertain the eviction proceedings.
Subsequent to the said objection, the said proceedings were
dismissed. He further submits that Respondent No.1-Company
This order is corrected as per the speaking to minutes of the order dated 4.4.2024.
Vinaa Khadpe 6 spk 901-IA-1365-2024.doc
thereafter did not challenge the findings recorded against it. He
submits that thereafter a new eviction proceedings were filed
against the Applicants under the provisions of the Presidency
Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 before the Small Causes Court. He
submits that the Applicants raised an objection under the mandate
of provisions under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes
Courts Act, 1882. He submits that the said eviction proceedings
were decreed in favour of Respondent No.1-Company / plaintiff.
Hence, the present Applicants filed an Appeal challenging the
eviction decree. He further submits that the said Appeal was also
dismissed by the Appellate Bench. He further submits thereafter
there were settlement talks between the Applicants and
Respondent No.1-Company. Hence, Applicants bonafide believe
that Respondent No.1-Company will not take steps to execute the
decree. He further submits that the Applicants have a good case
on merits and hence delay condonation Applications should be
allowed. To buttress his submission, he relied upon the Supreme
Court judgments. They are as follows;
1
(i) N. Balkrishna vs M. Krishnamurthy 1In the said judgment, the Supreme Court condoned the
delay of 883 days.
(ii) Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transportvs BEST Jagrut Kamgar Sanghatana 2Wherein the delay of 5 years and 11 months was
condoned.
1 (1998) 7 SCC 123
2 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2530
This order is corrected as per the speaking to minutes of the order dated 4.4.2024.
Vinaa Khadpe 7 spk 901-IA-1365-2024.doc
4.Ms. Nikita Vardhan, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.1-Company submits that her client has already sold
the suit land to Respondent No.2. Therefore, at this stage, she is
unable to offer any kind of settlement proposal to the Applicants.
She submits that on the earlier occasion, in the year 1999,
Respondent No.1-Company had floated a scheme of voluntary
retirement during which time, they had offered their employees,
who were residing in the accommodation provided by the
Company, to purchase the individual flats by paying some
amounts. She submits that around 55 workers out of 88 workers
accepted the said offer and became owners of their individual flats.
She further submitted that there after the workers who did not
vacate the accommodation provided by the Company, Respondent
No.1-Company filed eviction proceedings against them. She
submits that even when the said eviction proceedings were
pending, Respondent No.1-Company offered settlement proposals.
She submits that few of the employees / ex-employees came
forward and signed the consent terms. She also further submitted
that on the earlier occasion against the concurrent findings, to her
knowledge atleast two of the ex-employees had approached the
High Court. Their CRA was dismissed on merits. She therefore
submits that there is no merit in the delay condonation
Applications as also in the Civil Revision Applications. Therefore,
the same should be dismissed. She submits that there is no
sufficient cause mentioned in the delay condonation Applications
in order to condone the delay. She submits that Respondent No.1-
This order is corrected as per the speaking to minutes of the order dated 4.4.2024.
Vinaa Khadpe 8 spk 901-IA-1365-2024.doc
Company and Respondent No.2 have already filed a reply to the
Interim Applications opposing the condonation of delay.
5.Mr. Thorat, learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No.2 submits that it is admitted fact that the Applicants were
aware about the passing of the impugned Judgment and order in
the year 2016. As per the case made out by the Applicants in the
Interim Applications, he submits that there is no reasons
mentioned in the Interim Applications to condone the delay of
around 10 years. Mr. Thorat relied upon the Judgments in the
case of Majji Sannemma alias Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and
ors. 3 and Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram and ors4. Therefore, he prays
that the Interim Applications be dismissed with costs.
6.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
have considered the documents placed on record and the
Judgments cited by the parties.
7.Mr. Sonavane, has led emphasis on paragraph nos.3 to
7 of the Interim Applications for condoning delay. Paragraph
Nos.3 to 7 read as under:
3. The Applicant submits that, after filing of the Appeal proceeding, the representatives of the original Plaintiff Company approached to the Applicant and offered the proposal for amicable settlement of dispute. After due negotiation, the official personnel of Respondent –
3 (2021) 18 SCC 384
4 2023 SCC OnLine SC 92
This order is corrected as per the speaking to minutes of the order dated 4.4.2024.
Vinaa Khadpe 9 spk 901-IA-1365-2024.doc
Company gave assurances that the suit premises
would be transferred in favor of Applicant by
executing sale deed with reasonable concession in
consideration amount. The Respondent Company has
also sold out in all 55 out of total 81 tenements of the
said building in favor of its employee who were
working with the present Applicant in the company
up-till 1999.
4.The Applicant submits that due to assurance given by
the company, the applicant could not pay much more
attention to the progress of proceeding pending before
the Hon’ble Small Causes Court (Appellant Bench). In
the meanwhile, the Plaintiff-company, under the
pretext of negotiations protracted the proposal of
alienating the suit premises by executing document of
sale in favor of Applicant. In contrast, the Respondent
pursued the proceeding in Hon’ble Small Causes
Court, and fraudulently obtained the impugned
Judgment and Decree from the court of law.
5.The Applicant submits that, as per the assurances
given by the Plaintiff Company, they bonafidely waited
for the Plaintiff Company to adhere to their
commitments. Therefore, the Applicant did not pay
much attention towards the court proceedings. In
fact, the Applicant believed that, the matter could be
resolved by mutual negotiations since the Plaintiff
Company always showed their willingness and
positiveness from their side. But, thereafter, for the
reasons best known to the Plaintiff-company, the
proposal to alienate the suit premises in favor of
employees came to standstill. Albeit, due to change in
policy abruptly by the Respondent Company, the
Applicant – original Defendant precluded from getting
the suit premises transferred in his favor by executing
document of sale deed.
6. The Applicant submits that, he has occupied the suit premises on the strength of tenancy created during his
This order is corrected as per the speaking to minutes of the order dated 4.4.2024.
Vinaa Khadpe 10 spk 901-IA-1365-2024.doc
service period by executing written agreement.
Therefore, the provision of sec. 41(1) of the
Presidency Small Causes Court Act 1882 would not be
attributed in the present matter by virtue of express
provision of sec. 41(2) of the Presidency Small Causes
Court Act 1882. Moreover, the provision of section 47
of Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999, also put an
embargo on the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain
the matters which are amenable within the powers of
Ld. Competent Authority under Act of 1999.
7.The Applicant submits that, the Respondent –
Company lured the Applicant – employee under the
garb of mutual settlement of dispute by negation,
which precluded the Applicant – original defendant to
approach this forum at the earliest. There is a delay to
file the present revision petition. It is worth to
mention that when the Applicant – original defendant
received the notice of eviction petition filed by one
individual claiming to be transfree of Decree Holder of
Respondent Company, the Applicant tried to
reconciled the dispute with the employees of
Respondent but the shown reluctance and moreover
the conduct and demeanor of the official personnel of
Respondent – company demonstrated that there was
something fishy. The Applicant realized the mischief
played by the Respondent – company. In such peculiar
circumstances the Applicant has no any alternative but
to approach this Hon’ble court to redress his
grievance.
8.Mr. Thorat has drawn my attention to paragraph 10 of
the Interim Application which according to him shows that the
Applicants were aware of passing of the impugned order in the
year 2016. Paragraph 10 of the Interim Applications reads as
under :
This order is corrected as per the speaking to minutes of the order dated 4.4.2024.
Vinaa Khadpe 11 spk 901-IA-1365-2024.doc
10. The Applicant submits that the impugned judgment
and order was passed on 09th May, 2013 passed by the
Ld. Division Bench of the Court of Small Causes
(Appellant Court), at Mumbai, in Appeal No.60 of
2012. The Appellant got the knowledge about the
impugned judgment in the year 2016. As stated
herein above the applicant under the bonafide belief
that the negotiations were ongoing and as per the
assurance of the Respondent company to resolve the
issue mutually, instead of escalating the issue in
further legal proceeding, the Applicant did not
challenge the impugned order. The limitation to file
the revision petition ended on 9/7/13. Hence there is
delay of 10 years and 168 days in filing the present
application.
9.These Civil Revision Applications are filed by the
defendants who have suffered eviction decree from the trial Court
and the first Appellate Court. The present Civil Revision
Applications are undisuteldly filed after a period of 10 years. I
have gone through the content of the Interim Applications and I
find no justifiable reasons mentioned in the Interim Applications to
condone the delay. In the earlier round of litigation, when the
eviction proceedings were filed before the competent authority, the
present Applicants raised an objection of jurisdiction. Hence, the
competent authority rejected the Application filed by Respondent
No.1-Company. Therefore, Respondent No.1-Company filed
eviction proceedings under Section 41 of the the Presidency Small
Causes Courts Act, 1882, and the trial Court as well as the
Appellate Court both have concurrently held that the grounds of
eviction were proved. Hence, the eviction decree has been passed.
This order is corrected as per the speaking to minutes of the order dated 4.4.2024.
Vinaa Khadpe 12 spk 901-IA-1365-2024.doc
The said eviction decree has been challenged before this Court
after a span of 10 years.
10.Mr. Sonavane has referred to and relied on the
Judgment in case of N. Balkrishna (supra) more specifically
paragraph No.9 wherein the Supreme Court had led emphasis on
the issue of length of delay, where it is held that length of delay is
no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criteria.
However, I am not satisfied in the present proceedings with the
reasons cited by the Applicants.
11.Two Judgments were cited by Mr. Thorat on the issue
of condonation of delay. In the Judgment of Majji Sannemma alias
Sanyasirao (supra), the delay of 1011 days was not condoned by
the Supreme Court holding therein that the reasons given in the
delay condonation Application were not satisfactory. In the
Judgment of Ajay Dabra (supra), the Supreme Court did not
condone the delay of 284 days and dismissed the SLP. The ratio
laid down in these two judgments is squarely applicable to the
present proceedings.
12.According to me, no case is made out to condone the
delay of more than 10 years in filing Civil Revision Applications.
13.Hence, all Interim Applications stand dismissed. In
view of dismissal of Interim Applications, all Civil Revision
Applications stand dismissed.
This order is corrected as per the speaking to minutes of the order dated 4.4.2024.
Vinaa Khadpe 13 spk 901-IA-1365-2024.doc
14.At this stage, Mr. Sonavane, submits that the hearing of
the eviction proceedings pending before the trial Court should be
deferred by this Court for a limited time so that the Applicants can
challenge this order before the Supreme Court.
15.Mr. Thorat and Ms. Vardhan opposes the oral request
made by Mr. Sonavane.
16.This Court had earlier granted protection to these
Applicants. Hence, the trial Court is directed to defer the hearing
of eviction proceedings for a period of four weeks from today.
17.M/s. Kanga & Co. is permitted to file Vakalatnama on
behalf of the respondent no.1 in all the applications.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)
This order is corrected as per the speaking to minutes of the order dated 4.4.2024.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is sufficient cause to condone the delay of approximately 10 years in filing Civil Revision Applications challenging eviction decrees.
Whether the reasons provided by the applicants regarding settlement negotiations justify condonation of the extraordinary limitation period.
Whether the eviction proceedings pending in the trial court should be deferred pending appeal against this order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N. Balkrishna vs M. KrishnamurthyReferred¶133
(1998) 7 SCC 123 · Who else cites this
Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport vs BEST Jagrut Kamgar SanghatanaReferred¶133
2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2530 · Who else cites this
Majji Sannemma alias Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and ors.Relied on¶134
(2021) 18 SCC 384 · Who else cites this
Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram and ors.Relied on¶134
2023 SCC OnLine SC 92 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ajay Balkrishna Durve
Narayan Govind Naik
Shri Indira Tolasingh Bhandari
Mohan Jadhav
Shri Mustaf Abbas Kureshi
Shri Dangal Suka Pantpatil
RAJESH S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court