Allowed¶14

Hemant Vasantrao Kotnake and Another v. Jagannath Baliram Patil

Bombay HC31 Jul 2025MCA/431/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of writ petition dismissed for non-deposit of conditional Rs. 25,000/- amount directed to show bonafides; extension declined by order dated 08-05-2025; deposit permitted within three days by Demand Draft, failing which restoration stands dismissed; ground of severe health issues; respondent opposed citing lack of diligence and sought costs; Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; single judge Prafulla S. Khubalkar; 2025; MCA in writ petition; civil writ practice.

What did the court decide?

Misc. Civil Application allowed: writ petition restored for decision on merits and petitioner permitted to deposit the amount of Rs. 25,000/- with the Registry by Demand Draft within three days, failing which the restoration application shall stand dismissed. ¶14

Hemant Vasantrao Kotnake and Another Vs Jagannath Baliram Patil — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition, which stood dismissed for non-deposit of the amount directed to be paid to show the petitioner's bonafides, should be restored so that it can be decided on merits. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

Having regard to the contentions stated in the application and the submissions advanced, the writ petition needs to be restored so that it can be decided on merits.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Considering that the order dated 17-04-2025 issuing notices was passed after considering the merits of the matter, the application is allowed by permitting the petitioner to deposit the amount within three days from today.

¶13

Key takeaways

Office is directed to accept the Demand Draft to be filed by the petitioner within three days, failing which the restoration application shall stand dismissed.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.), 31-07-2025 - MCA No.431/2025 in Writ Petition No.2098/2025 (D), Hemant and another v. Jagannath: Restoration application allowed. By order dated 17-04-2025 the petitioner had been directed to deposit Rs. 25,000/- with the Registry within two weeks to show bonafides; on non-deposit (attributed to the petitioner's severe health issues), by order dated 08-05-2025 the Court declined extension since the petition stood dismissed and was not restored. Holding that the writ petition needed to be restored for decision on merits, and considering that the notice-issuing order dated 17-04-2025 was passed after considering the merits, the Court allowed the application, permitted deposit within three days from the order, and directed the Office to accept the Demand Draft, failing which the restoration application shall stand dismissed. Respondent had opposed the application, seeking rejection with costs, on the ground of the petitioner's lack of diligence.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

MCA No.431/2025 in Writ Petition No.2098/2025 (D) Hemant and another V Jagannath

¶4

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

- - - - ---------------------------- Mr. Anurag Mankar, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. A.A. Dhawas, Advocate for respondent.

¶7

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATE : 31-07-2025.

¶8

This is an application by the petitioner for restoration of
the writ petition and for seeking permission to deposit the amount
with the Registry.

¶9

2.Heard Mr. Mankar, learned Advocate for the petitioner.
He submits that by order dated 17-04-2025 passed by this Court, the
petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with
the registry within a period of two weeks from that date, to show the
bonafides of the petitioner. Since the amount was not deposited and
although an extension was sought, by order dated 08-05-2025, this
Court declined to grant extension only because the petition stood
dismissed and it was not restored. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner was suffering from severe
health issues and it was not possible for the petitioner to
immediately deposit the amount, however, the petitioner is now
ready to deposit the amount of Rs.25,000/- immediately. He submits
that the order dated 17-04-2025 issuing notices in the petition was
passed by the Court after considering the merits of the matter and
the petitioner is interested to contest the petition on merits. He,
therefore, requests for restoration of the writ petition and permission
to deposit the amount.

¶10

3.Mr. Dhawas, learned Advocate for the respondent
opposes the application and submits that the petitioner was not
diligent in complying with the order and the application be rejected
with costs.

¶11

2 mca 431.25.odt

¶12

4.Having regard to the contentions stated in the
application and the submissions advanced, the writ petition needs to
be restored so that it can be decided on merits.

¶13

5.Considering the order dated 17-04-2025 issuing notices
which was passed after considering the merits of the matter, this
application needs to be allowed by permitting the petitioner to
deposit the amount within three days from today.

¶14

6. Misc. Civil Application is allowed.

¶15

7.Office is directed to accept the Demand Draft to be filed
by the petitioner within three days, failing which the restoration
application shall stand dismissed.

¶16

( Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J. )

¶17

Deshmukh

Hemant Vasantrao Kotnake and Another v. Jagannath Baliram Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Vasantrao Kotnake and Another v. Jagannath Baliram Patil

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

Similar cases

Anilkumar S/O Tejlal Soyam vs State of Maha., Thr. Principal Secy., Rural Devpt. and Panchayat Raj, Mumbai and Ors.

Santosh Ramniwas Zarodiya, Thr. P.O.a, Sanjay Gopiram Zarodiya vs Bhagirath Jaynarayan Boob, Thr. P.O.a., Bhagwandas Jaynarayan Boob

Charan S/O Prakashchand Kankariya and Another vs the N.H.a.I., Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highway, Thr. Project Director and Ors.

R. K. Developers, Thr. Ravikumar Kunjbihari Agrawal vs Shri Balasaheb Trust, Mehkar Thr. Trustee, Harshal S/O Hari Soman (Transpose to P.NO.2) and Others

Shri. Rupesh S/O Sahadeo Wanve vs the Additional Collector, Nagpur and Others

Amol S/O Subashrao Deshpande vs Suresh S/O Indal Chavan