Bombay High Court
CHARU KISHOR MEHTAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court condoned the 27‑day delay in filing the Review Petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Charu Kishor Mehta, filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 27‑day delay in filing a Review Petition. The application contended that notices to Respondents No.3 and No.4 had been served by private service, and an affidavit of service was offered. The court noted that service to Respondent No.2 was confirmed, while service to Respondents No.3 and No.4 was pending but later substantiated by the affidavit. Considering the reasons provided and the interest of substantive justice, the court held that the delay warranted condonation. Consequently, the interim application was allowed, the delay was condoned, and the Review Petition was ordered to be registered and listed for admission on 15 October 2026. The decision emphasizes the court's discretion to condone procedural delays when justified.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 27 days in filing a Review Petition can be condoned
- Whether service of notice by private service, supported by an affidavit, satisfies procedural requirements
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- review petition
- service of notice
- private service
- high court of Bombay
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
23-REV-9-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVISION PETITION NO. 9 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 303 OF 2026
Charu Kishor Mehta ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & ors. …Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1288 OF 2026
IN
REVISION PETITION NO. 9 OF 2026
Ms. Minal Chandnani, a/w C. Keswani, i/b Mr. Ashish Jagiasi
for the Petitioner.
Mr. Veerdhawal Deshmukh, for Respondent No.5.
SAINATH
SANJAY
Mr. D J Haldankar, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
BODKHE
Digitally signed by
SAINATH SANJAY
BODKHE
Date: 2026.09.28
11:11:36 +0530
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.:
IA/1288/2026
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the
Review Petition.
3. The office report indicates that, the notice has been duly
served on the Respondent No.2 whereas the report of service to
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 is awaited.
SAINATH, PA 1/2
23-REV-9-2026.DOC
4. Mr. Haldankar, the learned APP and Mr. Deshmukh, the
learned Counsel, appear for Respondent Nos.1 and 5,
respectively.
5. Ms. Chandnani, the learned Counsel for the applicant
submits that, the notices have been duly served on the other
respondents by private service.
6. Ms. Chandnani, seeks leave to tender an affidavit of
service.
7. The affidavit of service indicates that, the notices have
been served on the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 by private service.
None appears for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
8. For the reasons assigned in the application and to
advance the cause of substantive justice, the delay of 27 days in
preferring the Review Petition deserves to be condoned.
9. The Interim Application, thus, stands allowed.
10. The delay in preferring the Review Petition stands
condoned.
11. The Review Petition be registered and listed for admission
on 15th October, 2026, ‘High on Board’.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
SAINATH, PA 2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.