Bombay High Court
MSTC LIMITEDversusShri Ishar Alloy Steels Limited
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- M M SATHAYE
Holding
The Court condoned the delay and restored the applications, subject to the applicant depositing costs of Rs. 15,000 to the respondents.
Summary
MSTC Limited, a government company, filed an application to restore its earlier leave to appeal (ST) No. 639 of 2019 and a related delay‑condonation application (No. 1410 of 2019) which had been dismissed for default on 9 January 2026. The restoration application was filed 15 days late, and the respondents opposed condoning the delay, arguing no sufficient cause. The applicant argued the lapse was inadvertent and there was no intention to abandon the proceedings. The Court examined the nature of the controversy—an order of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—and found that sufficient cause existed to condone the delay. It ordered the delay to be condoned, restored both applications, and imposed a cost of Rs. 15,000 on the applicant payable to the respondents, who may withdraw upon payment.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 15 days in filing an application for restoration of a dismissed leave‑to‑appeal can be condoned.
- Whether sufficient cause exists to justify condonation of the delay.
Legislation cited
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138
Subjects
- delay condonation
- restoration of appeal
- Section 138
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
- costs
Judgment
4-IA-1038-2026.doc
Digitally signed
by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HUSENBASHA
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
RAHAMAN NADAF
NADAF Date:
2026.04.30
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1038 OF 2026
18:49:01 +0530
IN
CRIMINAL APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (ST) NO. 639 OF 2019
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1410 OF 2019
MSTC Limited … Applicant
Vs.
Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Limited & Ors. … Respondents
***
Mr. Kushal Mor a/w. Mr. Amit Jajoo, Ms. Anamika Singh, Mr. Vedant
Chajjed and Mr. Kushal Boolchandani i/b. Trilegal for Applicant.
Mr. Vivek Sharma for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
Ms. Rashmi S. Tendulkar, APP for the Respondent / State
***
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 30th APRIL, 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application for restoration of Application for Leave to
Appeal (ST) No. 639 of 2019 alongwith Application No. 1410 of
2019 (for delay condonation), which were dismissed for default on
09.01.2026.
3. There is delay of 15 days in filing this application.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant invited attention of the
Court to the statements made in paragraph Nos.5 & 6 of the
application and submitted that earlier Advocate did not appear when
Husen 1
4-IA-1038-2026.doc
the matter was called out due to inadvertent lapse and there was no
intention to abandon the application.
5. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has opposed the
delay condonation application contending that sufficient cause is not
made out.
6. The Applicant is a government company and leave was sought
to challenge an order of acquittal under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
7. Considering the averments, extent of delay and nature of
controversy, sufficient cause is made out. However, Respondent Nos.
2 & 3 are entitled to suitable costs as compensation.
8. The application is therefore allowed by passing following order.
(A) Subject to the Applicant depositing costs of Rs. 15,000/-
in this Court (for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3), within a period of 4
weeks from today, this application is allowed; delay is
condoned and both CRIMINAL APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
APPEAL (ST) NO. 639 OF 2019 and INTERIM APPLICATION
NO. 1410 OF 2019 are restored.
(B) On deposit of costs, Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 shall be at
liberty to withdraw.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Husen 2
Checking your session…