The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited vs Mr. Ravi Kumar Puri — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited vs Mr. Ravi Kumar Puri — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay in filing the restoration application condoned and First Appeal No.1390 of 2015 restored, subject to payment of Rs.30,000/- as cost to Tata Memorial Hospital, E. Borges Road, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012, within four weeks, failing which the interim-application order stands automatically withdrawn without reference to the Court; time to file the paper-book extended by four weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim application seeking restoration of First Appeal No.1390 of 2015, dismissed by a self-operating order dated 13 July 2022 for non-filing of the paper book within six months, should be granted notwithstanding that the application was filed on 20 January 2026, more than three years after the dismissal. +1 more

Court's answer

Where the delay is attributable to the advocate, the litigant should not suffer: the delay, though not explained sufficiently, was condoned and the first appeal was restored, subject to payment of cost of Rs.30,000/- to Tata Memorial Hospital within four weeks, failing which the interim-application order would stand automatically withdrawn without reference to the Court.

Ratio / Principle

The Covid-19 explanation for the delay was rejected: when the six-month period expired on 12 January 2023, the pandemic was long over and even the extension granted by the Supreme Court had stood expired; therefore that reason could not be accepted.

Key takeaways

Since the delay arose from the inadvertence of the advocate and the managing clerk in correlating the first appeal by its number with the name of the applicant-company, and the same advocate continues on record, it is presumed that the applicant/appellant has no grievance against the advocate.ratio¶¶20
Time for filing the paper-book was extended by a period of four weeks from the date of the order.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Jitendra Jain, J.), order dated 28 January 2026, in Interim Application No.680 of 2026 in First Appeal No.1390 of 2015 — The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited (applicant/appellant, original plaintiff) v. Ravi Kumar Puri. The appeal had been dismissed by a self-operating order dated 13 July 2022 as the paper book was not filed within six months; the restoration application was filed only on 20 January 2026, over three years later. The Covid-19 explanation was rejected: the six-month window expired on 12 January 2023, by when the pandemic was long over and the extension granted by the Supreme Court had also expired. Since the lapse flowed from the inadvertence of the advocate and the managing clerk in correlating the appeal number with the company's name, and the same advocate continues on record (so no grievance against him was presumed), the Court held the applicant should not suffer for reasons attributable to the advocate: the delay, though not explained sufficiently, was condoned and the first appeal restored, subject to payment of Rs.30,000/- as cost to Tata Memorial Hospital, Parel, within four weeks — failing which the order stands automatically withdrawn without reference to the Court — and time to file the paper-book was extended by four weeks.

ppn 1 5.ia-680.26.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Digitally signed by PRACHI PRACHI PRANESH PRANESHNANDIWADEKAR NANDIWADEKAR INTERIM APPLICATION NO.680 OF 2026 Date: 2026.01.28 16:33:42 +0530 IN

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1390 OF 2015

The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited

..Applicant/Appellant (original plaintiff)

V/s. Ravi Kumar Puri ..Respondent

Ms. Neeta Jain a/w Ms. Rujuta Patil, Ms. Anaisha Zachariah and Ms. Masira Lulania Advocates i/by Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah for the applicant/ appellant.

None for the respondent.

CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J. DATED : 28 January 2026

P.C. :

This application is filed by the applicant/appellant seeking restoration of the appeal, which came to be dismissed by selfoperating order dated 13 July 2022 since the paper book was not filed within six months.

The present application is filed on 20 January 2026 which is after more than 3 years. The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant states that this application ought to have been filed latest by 12 February 2023.

One of the reasons given in the application is on account of Covid. The self-operating order dated 13 July 2022 gave six months’ time, which expired on 12 January 2023. By this time, the Covid-19

ppn 2 5.ia-680.26.doc

pandemic was long over and even the extension granted by the Supreme Court also stood expired. Therefore, this reason of Covid cannot be accepted.

The other reason given is the inadvertence of the managing clerk of the advocate and the concerned advocate of not correlating the first appeal by its number and the name of the applicant/appellant-company. The same advocate continues today and has accepted the mistake.

In this case, the applicant has stated that it was on account of inadvertence of the advocate and the same advocate continues on record. Therefore, even today, it will be presumed that the applicant/appellant has no grievance against the advocate.

For the reasons attributable to the advocate, in the facts of the present case, the applicant/appellant should not suffer. Therefore, the delay though not explained sufficiently is condoned and the first appeal is restored subject to payment of cost of Rs.30,000/- to be paid to Tata Memorial Hospital, E. Borges Road, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 within four weeks from today, failing which, the present order passed in the interim application would stand automatically withdrawn without reference to the Court.

Time to filing the paper-book is extended by a period of four weeks from today.

Interim application is allowed in above terms.