Bombay High Court
P. RAGHOTHAMAM NAYAKARversusM/S. G.S. CONSTRUCTION CO. AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- R N LADDHA
Holding
The appeals may be withdrawn with liberty to re‑file before the Sessions Court, and the pendency period before this Court may be excluded for condonation of delay.
Summary
The appellant, P. Raghothaman Nayakar, sought leave to withdraw three criminal appeals pending before the Bombay High Court and to re‑file them before the Sessions Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025). The Court considered whether such withdrawal with liberty to re‑file was permissible and whether the period during which the appeals were pending could be excluded for the purpose of condoning delay. It held that the appeals could be withdrawn and the appellant could seek to have the pendency period excluded when filing before the Sessions Court. The Court also directed that the appellant be allowed to obtain a certified copy of the impugned judgment for filing the new appeals and set an eight‑week deadline for filing. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of by permitting their withdrawal with liberty to re‑file.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant may be permitted to withdraw pending criminal appeals and re‑file them before the Sessions Court.
- Whether the period of pendency before the High Court can be excluded for condonation of delay in the re‑filed appeals.
Subjects
- withdrawal of appeal
- re‑filing of appeal
- limitation period
- condonation of delay
- procedural law
- Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Judgment
Mamta Kale 26-apeal-342-2006.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2006
with
Criminal Appeal No. 341 of 2006
with
Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 2006
P Raghothaman Nayakar … Appellant
versus
M/s G S Construction Co. and Ors. … Respondents
MAMTA
AMAR
KALE
----
Digitally signed by
MAMTA AMAR KALE
Date: 2026.03.04
17:54:20 +0530
Mr Makarand Shinde a/w Mr Gaurav Pande, for the Appellant.
Mr Gautam Modanwal i/b T J Pandian, for Respondents No.1
and 2.
Mr Arfan Sait, APP, for the Respondent / State.
----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 4 March 2026
P.C.:
. The learned Counsel for the appellant, on instructions,
seeks leave to withdraw these three appeals with liberty to file
the appeals before the learned Sessions Court, in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Celestium
Financial vs A Gnanasekaran, 2025 SCC OnLine 1320.
2. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeals are
Page 1 of 2
__________________________________________________
4 March 2026
Mamta Kale 26-apeal-342-2006.docx
permitted to be withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty and stand
disposed of accordingly.
3. In the event such appeals are filed, the Sessions Court
shall consider the question of limitation, bearing in mind that
the present appeals were pending before this Court. Any such
appeals shall be filed within a period of eight weeks from today.
The appellant shall be entitled to seek exclusion of the period
during which the present appeals remained pending before this
Court, for the purpose of condonation of delay before the
Sessions Court. The Sessions Court shall consider the question
of delay in that context. The learned Counsel for the appellant
is permitted to apply for the return of a certified copy of the
impugned judgment and order for the purpose of filing the
appeals before the Sessions Court, upon producing a photocopy
thereof. The Registry shall verify the photocopy and, upon due
verification, return the certified copy to the learned Counsel for
the appellant.
(R.N. Laddha, J.)
Page 2 of 2
__________________________________________________
4 March 2026
Checking your session…