Allowed¶8

Tex Fab India v. Union of India

Bombay HC4 Mar 2025CHOL/350/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay of 3 months 9 days in filing Chamber Order CHOL/350/2024 in WPL/8097/2023; restoration of writ petition rejected under O.S. Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections; cost of Rs. 5,000/- to High Court Law Library; order dated 05.03.2024 set aside; petitioner to remove office objections within four weeks; Prothonotary & Senior Master; substantial justice; inadvertence of advocate on record.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 3 months 9 days in filing the Chamber Order condoned subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the High Court Law Library within a week from the date of uploading of the order; Chamber Order granted as prayed; petitioner to remove office objections and get the Petition registered/numbered within four weeks from payment of cost, failing which the Petition stands rejected under O.S. Rule 986.

Tex Fab India vs Union of India — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 3 months and 9 days in filing the Chamber Order seeking to set aside the order dated 05.03.2024 (rejecting the Petition under O.S. Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections) should be condoned and the Petition restored to file.

¶7

Court's answer

One opportunity is to be given to the applicant so that the captioned Petition can be heard on merits, whereby substantial justice is taken care of.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The delay of 3 months 9 days in filing the Chamber Order is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the High Court Law Library within a week from the date of uploading of the order.

¶8

Key takeaways

The Chamber Order is granted as prayed, i.e., the application for setting aside the order dated 05.03.2024 rejecting the Petition is allowed.ratio¶8
The petitioner must remove office objections and have the Petition registered and/or numbered within four weeks from the date of payment of cost, failing which the Petition shall stand rejected for non-compliance of office objections under O.S. Rule 986.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chamber Order CHOL/350/2024 in WPL/8097/2023 (Before Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master, 04.03.2025): The applicant sought setting aside of the order dated 05.03.2024 rejecting the Petition under O.S. Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections. Holding that one opportunity ought to be given so that the Petition can be heard on merits and substantial justice taken care of, the delay of 3 months and 9 days in filing the Chamber Order was condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the High Court Law Library within a week from upload of the order. The Chamber Order was granted as prayed, with liberty/direction to the petitioner to remove office objections and have the Petition registered and/or numbered within four weeks from payment of cost, failing which the Petition shall stand rejected for non-compliance of office objections under O.S. Rule 986.

¶1

Before : Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 4^th March, 2025

¶2

FOR HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL :

¶3

38 CHOL/350/2024 ) Mr. Aman Mishra i/b. UBR Legal, Advocate for in ) the applicant. WPL/8097/2023 ) ) Ms. Manisha Gawde, A.G.P for respondent no. ) 2. ) ) P.C.: The present Chamber Order is e-filed by the ) applicant for setting aside Order dated ) 05.03.2024, rejecting captioned Petition under ) O.S.Rule 986 for non-compliance of office ) objections. ) ) Ld. A.G.P appearing for respondent no. 2 ) waives service of Chamber Order for and on ) behalf of respondent no. 2. ) ) Ld. Advocate for the applicant submits that ) respondent nos. 1 and 3 to 5 were served with ) Chamber Order as per Affidavit of Service, ) filed on record. Despite service, none ) appeared for these respondents. ) ) Heard ld. Advocate for the applicant. Perused ) Affidavit in Support of the Chamber Order, ) contents of which are self-explanatory. It is ) averred that Advocate on record, ) inadvertently, missed the order and failed to ) take action accordingly. Ld. Advocate for the ) applicant submits that he will pursue with the ) captioned Petition diligently once it is restored ) to file and therefore, prayed for restoration of ) captioned Petition by condoning delay caused ) in filing present Chamber Order since it was ) unintentional. ) ) Ld. A.G.P for respondent no. 2 submits for ) passing suitable orders.

¶4

2 Before : Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 4^th March, 2025

¶5

contd…. ) CHOL/350/2024 ) in ) WPL/8097/2023 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

¶6

Date : 04.03.2025

¶7

Considering reason mentioned on oath, and submissions of ld. Advocate for the applicant, I am of the view that one opportunity needs to be given to the applicant, so that captioned Petition can be heard on merits, by which substantial justice can be taken care of. However, it appears that there is delay of 3 months and 9 days caused in filing present Chamber Order, which can be condoned by saddling cost.

¶8

In view thereof, in the interest of justice, delay of 3 months 9 days caused in filing present Chamber Order is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/-, to be paid to the High Court Law Library within a week from the date of uploading of order. Accordingly, the present Chamber Order is granted as prayed.

¶9

The petitioner to remove office objections on the Petition and get the same registered and/or numbered within four weeks from the date of payment of cost, failing Petition to stand rejected for non-compliance of office objections under O.S.Rule 986.

¶10

Prothonotary and Senior Master

¶11

Digitally signed by RAJEEV RAJEEV VIJAY VIJAY ACHARYA ACHARYA Date:2025.03.04 17:35:33 +0530

Tex Fab India v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tex Fab India v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sharvani Parag Korgaonkar Nee Shilpa D/O Prakash Dhamanaskar vs Prakash Raghunath Dhamanaskar (Deceased)

Jivaji Vasant Patil vs Vasant Shantaram Patil

Dr. Mahrukh Godrej Doctor vs Maneck Faramroze Doctor

Arnik Shantilal Punamia vs Sayribai Shantilal Punamiya (Deceased)

Shubhangi Pramodkumar Kasbekar vs Shanta Digambar Wagh (Deceased)

Sunil Chandrakant Bhuta vs Chandravadan Anantray Bhuta (Deceased)