Allowed

Santacruz Ratnakar Chs Ltd. v. Kamlakar Dhaklya Dhadge

Bombay HC14 Dec 2024IA/2826/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed an interim application condoning delay to recall a prior dismissal of a writ petition due to counsel's lack of instructions. The Court held the petitioner should not suffer for the lawyer's misbehavior and restored the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The interim application was allowed, delay was condoned, and the Writ Petition No. 2761 of 2015 was restored.

Santacruz Ratnakar Chs Ltd. vs Kamlakar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

5-IA-2826-2024.odt

¶2

2024:BHC-OS:20743-DB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2826 OF 2024 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2761 OF 2015

¶6

Santacruz Ratnakar CHS Ltd. ...Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Santacruz Ratnakar CHS Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus

¶7

Kamlakar Dhaklya Dhadge And Ors. ... Respondents

¶8

Adv. Gautam Ankhad a/w Adv. Mrunali Lanjewar i/b MDP Associates for the Petitioner.

¶9

Adv. Pratik B. Rahade i/b K. S. Patil for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Adv. Prachi Tatake, Addl. GP a/w Nazia Sheikh, AGP for Respondent Nos. 5& 6.

¶10

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

¶11

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ. DATE : 14^th DECEMBER, 2024

¶12

Per Court :-

¶13

Vide order dated 3^rd April, 2024 the Petition was dismissed

¶14

for default. This Interim Application is filed on 29^th August, 2024. There are certain intervening events. For the purpose of condonation of delay,

¶15

either a prayer needs to be added in this Application or a separate Application needs to be filed.

1 of 4

Harish

5-IA-2826-2024.odt

We would permit the Applicant to amend this Application and add a prayer for condonation of delay. Addition be carried out forthwith.

¶20

In so far as contents of the Interim Application are concerned, it is brought to our notice that on 3^rd April, 2024, this Court [Nitin Jamdar (as his Lordship then was) and M. M. Sathaye, JJ.] passed the following order :-

¶21

“We place our displeasure on record for the manner in which the writ petition filed in the year 2015 is being prosecuted. We had passed the orders on 18 January, 2024 and 13 March 2024 in that regard.

¶22

The law firm continues to be on record for the Petitioner, but when the matter called, the learned Counsel, who appears for the Petitioner, has no instructions to argue the matter. No alternate arrangement is made. Such position cannot be countenanced.

¶23

3. The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.”

¶24

Vide one more Interim Application No. 2257 of 2024, the present Applicant had put forth a completely different story thereby, contradicting the order dated 3^rd April, 2024. This Court [Nitin Jamdar (as his Lordship then was) and M. M. Sathaye, JJ.] passed an order on 13^th August, 2024 as under :-

2 of 4

Harish

5-IA-2826-2024.odt

“The Petition though dismissed for non-prosecution because the Advocate had no instructions to argue, the application filed for recall of the order contains pleadings to the contrary. The learned counsel for the Applicant states that a proper application would be filed tendering a apology. Leave is granted to withdraw the application to file a fresh application.

¶29

2. Interim Application is accordingly disposed of.”

¶30

An apology has been tendered by the Petitioner in paragraph

¶31

No. 2 in the present Interim Application, which reads thus :-

¶32

(2) At the outset, the Applicant sincerely and unconditionally apologizes for its conduct which has caused the Hon’ble Court to pass the order dated 3^rd April 2024. The Applicant states and submits that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to give an opportunity to have the captioned Petition adjudicated on merits.

¶33

The Applicant has an excellent case on merits. With a view to set out some mitigating factors, the Applicant invites the attention of the Hon’ble Court to the following whilst deciding the present application.

¶34

6. The learned Advocate representing Respondent Nos. 1 to 4

¶35

has vehemently opposed this Interim Application. He contends that the conduct of the Applicant-Petitioner is writ large on the record. This Application, therefore, does not deserve any consideration.

¶36

It is Apparent from the record before us that whatever has transpired hereinbefore, which events have been recorded in the

3 of 4

Harish

5-IA-2826-2024.odt

foregoing paragraphs, the issue would turn upon the lawyers/law firm which made such statements, inviting the displeasure of the Court, as reflected in its orders dated 3^rd April, 2024 and 13^th August, 2024. Nevertheless, a litigant ought not to suffer if his lawyer has behaved inappropriately or has made inappropriate statements or factually incorrect statements before the Court. The Petitioner ought not to suffer for the same.

¶41

Considering the above, we are of the view that, the Petition filed in 2015 needs to be heard in order to enable the Petitioner to canvass it’s case. As such, this Interim Application is allowed . The delay is condoned.

¶42

Writ Petition No. 2761 of 2015 is restored at the stage at which

¶43

it was dismissed.

¶44

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶45

Signed by: Harish V. Chaudhari Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Harish Date: 17/12/2024 18:19:38

¶46

4 of 4

Santacruz Ratnakar Chs Ltd. v. Kamlakar Dhaklya Dhadge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santacruz Ratnakar Chs Ltd. v. Kamlakar Dhaklya Dhadge

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

Pradnesh Milind Jhadav vs Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Ramesh Narayan Gilatar vs Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through Its Commissioner

Gohil Kanta Ashok vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corp. of Gr. Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Lalit C. Joshi vs the Chairman and Managing Director Bank of Baroda and 2 Ors.

Surekha Dinkar Thakar Alias Sharada Subhash Shivankar vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Raghunath Sudhakar Kulkarni vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Additional Government Pleader and Ors.