Allowed¶25

Chandresh G. Sanghvi and Anr. v. S.K. Singhi and Partner LLP and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jun 2025IA/6955/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court condonation of delay; 167 days delay; Interim Application No. 6955 of 2025; Commercial First Appeal Stamp No. 6197 of 2025; exparte judgment dated 25th June 2024; City Civil Court Mazgaon Mumbai; Commercial Suit No. 872 of 2024; no service of writ of summons on defendants; Chandresh G. Sanghvi; S.K. Singh & Partners LLP; Akash Rebello; Akshaya Puthran; R.I. Chagla; Farhan P. Dubash; 7 October 2025.

What did the court decide?

Interim Application No. 6955 of 2025 allowed and disposed of; the delay of 167 days in filing of the Commercial First Appeal is condoned. ¶25

Chandresh G. Sanghvi and Anr. vs S.K. Singhi and Partner LLP and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Ajay Jadhav

¶2

915-IA-6955-2025.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6955 OF 2025

¶5

¶6

COMMERCIAL FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 6197 OF 2025

¶7

Chandresh G. Sanghvi & Anr. … Applicants In the matter between Chandresh G. Sanghvi & Anr. … Appellants V/s. S.K. Singh & Partners LLP & Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Akash Rebello a/w Mr. Nadeem Shama for Appellants in Com.FA.(ST) No. 6197/2025.

¶9

Mrs. Akshaya Puthran a/w. Mr. Ankur Singhi & Mr. Rhythm Rathod i/b. S.K. Singhi and Partners LLP. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶10

Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTIPRAKASH PRAKASHPAWARDate: PAWAR 2025.10.09 14:18:16 +0530

¶11

CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 7TH OCTOBER 2025

¶13

P. C. :

¶14

By this Commercial First Appeal, the Appellants seek to set aside the impugned Judgment dated 25th June 2024 passed by the City Civil Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai in Commercial Suit No. 872 of 2024. There is a

¶15

delay of 167 days in filing the Commercial First Appeal and accordingly,

¶16

1/3

¶17

915-IA-6955-2025.doc Ajay Jadhav

¶18

Interim Application No. 6955 of 2025 has been taken out by the Appellants seeking condonation of delay in its filing.

¶19

The reason for the delay has been set out in the Interim Application which interalia reveal that Appellant No. 1 had learnt of the filing of the above suit and Notice of Motion taken out therein, in the first week of December 2024. It is further stated that the writ of summons has not been served by the Plaintiffs in the above suit on the Defendants and the Suit has been disposed of by the Impugned Judgment.

¶20

The learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has opposed the condonation of delay on the ground that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had sent an e-mail to Appellant No. 1 on 3rd April 2024. She has submitted that this position has also been admitted in the Interim Application.

¶21

Considering that the Impugned Judgment has been passed exparte by the City Civil Court, Mumbai and without service of writ of summons on the Defendants, the delay in preferring the above Commercial First Appeal requires to be condoned. There is sufficient cause shown in the Interim Application for condonation of delay on that ground.

¶22

2/3

¶23

Ajay Jadhav

¶24

The Interim Application No. 6955 of 2025 is accordingly

¶25

allowed. The delay in filing of the Commercial First Appeal is condoned.

¶26

Interim Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶27

3/3

Chandresh G. Sanghvi and Anr. v. S.K. Singhi and Partner LLP and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandresh G. Sanghvi and Anr. v. S.K. Singhi and Partner LLP and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tata Capital Ltd. through Aishwarya Kondlekar vs State of Maharashtra through G.P. and Anr.

Bombay Metal Exchange Ltd. vs Union of India (through Secretary Ministry of Mines)

Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. a through Sonar vs the State of Maharashtra through G P and Anr.

Ray Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs the Board of Directors of Canara Bank

Catalyst Trusteeship Limited vs Reynold Shirting Limited

Dattani Nagar One Chs Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra through Sub-Registrar of Assurances