Bombay High Court
DINESH CHHOTALAL JOSHIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the petitioner’s claim of loss of authorized signatory status pertains to the merits and therefore does not constitute a valid ground for review, leading to dismissal of the review petition.
Summary
Dinesh Chhotalal Joshi filed Review Petition No.5 of 2026 challenging an earlier order in Writ Petition No.4120 of 2024, alleging that a letter from Federal Bank dated 6 March 2026 showed he ceased to be an authorized signatory from 20 October 2015. The petitioner sought to have the earlier order set aside on this ground. The Court examined whether the loss of signatory status constituted a valid ground for review and held that it went to the merits of the case, which cannot be reopened by a review petition. Consequently, the Court found no substantive basis for the review. The delay in filing the review petition was condoned in the interest of substantive justice, but the petition was dismissed. The associated interim application was also disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the loss of authorized signatory status is a permissible ground for a review of the earlier order
- Whether the delay in filing the review petition can be condoned
Subjects
- review petition
- ground of review
- merits of the case
- delay condonation
- authorized signatory
- banking
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
2 REVW-5-26.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO. 5 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4120 OF 2024
Dinesh Chhotalal Joshi ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & anr. …Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1151 OF 2026
IN
REVIEW PETITION NO. 4 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1154 OF 2026
IN
REVIEW PETITION NO. 7 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1153 OF 2026
IN
REVIEW PETITION NO. 6 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1155 OF 2026
IN
REVIEW PETITION NO. 8 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1152 OF 2026
IN
REVIEW PETITION NO. 5 OF 2026
SAINATH
SANJAY Mr. Prasad Dani, Sr. Advocate, i/b Ms. Disha Jain, for the
BODKHE
Digitally signed
by SAINATH
SANJAY BODKHE
Review Petitioner/Applicant in RPW/7/2026 a/w
IA/1154/2026.
Date: 2026.09.05
14:58:41 +0530
Mr. Omkar Kulkarni, i/b Ms. Disha Jain, for Review
Petitioner/Applicant in RPW/4/2026, RPW/5/2026,
SAINATH, PA 1/3
2 REVW-5-26.DOC
RPW/6/2026 & RPW/8/2026 a/w IA/1151/2026,
IA/1152/2026, IA/1153/2026 & IA/1155/2026.
Smt. R S Tendulkar, APP for Respondent – State in
RPW/4/2026, 6/2026, 7/2026 & 8/2026.
Mr. D J Haldankar, APP for Respondent – State in
RPW/5/2026.
Mr. Jeetendra Ranawal, for Respondent No. 2 in all.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 03rd September 2026
P.C.:
IA/1154/2026
1. For the reasons assigned in the application and to
advance the cause of substantive justice, the delay in preferring
the review petition stands condoned.
RPW/7/2026
2. Heard Mr. Dani, the learned Senior Advocate, for the
review petitioner in RPW/7/2026 alongwith IA/1154/2026.
3. Review is sought on the ground that subsequent to the
passing of order by this Court, the review petitioner came in
custody of a document i.e. letter dated 06 th March, 2026 issued
by the Federal Bank to the effect that the review petitioner
ceased to be the authorized signatory with effect from 20 th
October, 2015.
SAINATH, PA 2/3
2 REVW-5-26.DOC
4. Even if the said ground is taken at par, that issue touches
the merits of the matter and that would not be a ground to
review the order passed by this Court. Thus, there is no
substance in the review petition.
5. The Review Petition stands dismissed.
6. In view of the dismissal of Review Petition, IA/1154/2026
also stands disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
SAINATH, PA 3/3
Checking your session…