Bombay High Court
M/S. MANISHA CHEMICALS AND ORS.versusJSW STEEL LIMITED (FORMELY KNOWN AS M/S. JINDAL IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD.)
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appeal cannot be restored; the interim application is dismissed.
Summary
Manisha Chemicals & Ors. appealed a trial court order directing them to pay Rs.30 lakh to JSW Steel Ltd. The High Court, on 4 October 2017, issued a self‑operative order requiring the appellants to deposit Rs.15 lakh by 24 October and the balance by 7 November 2017, otherwise the appeal would be dismissed. The appellants failed to make the deposits, and the appeal was deemed dismissed on 8 November 2017. After more than seven years, the appellants filed an interim application on 19 September 2025 seeking restoration of the appeal, claiming a delay of 195 days. The Court observed that the actual delay was over seven years, no justification was provided, and the self‑operative order had not been challenged or varied, rendering the application untenable. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kayamuddin Shamsuddin Khan v. State Bank of India, the Court dismissed the interim application, holding that the appeal cannot be restored.
Issues considered
- Whether an appeal dismissed by a self‑operative order can be restored after a delay of more than seven years.
- Whether the self‑operative order can be varied without a prior challenge in a higher forum.
- Whether the precedent set in Kayamuddin Shamsuddin Khan v. State Bank of India is applicable to the present facts.
Subjects
- restoration of appeal
- self‑operative order
- delay in filing
- interim application
- procedural law
- High Court
- precedent
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:2095
Sayyed 31-IA.13594.2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.13594 of 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.1197 OF 2017
Manisha Chemicals & Ors. ...Applicants/Appellants
Versus
JSW Steel Limited, (Formerly known
as M/s. Jindal Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.) ...Respondent
_____________________________________________________
Mr. Amit A. Gharte for the Applicants/Appellants.
Mr. Sunil Gangan a/w Mr. Swapnil Shikhare & Mr. Manav Chetwani
i/by RMG Law Associates for the Respondent.
_____________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATE : 17 JANUARY 2026
P.C.:
1. This interim application is taken out for restoration of an
appeal which came to be dismissed by a self-operative order dated 4
October 2017. There is a delay in filing the present application which as
per the interim application is 195 days.
2. The appeal was filed against an order of the Trial Court
directing the appellant-applicant to pay Rs.30 lakhs.
3. On 4 October 2017, this Court passed following order :-
“The applicants are directed to deposit Rs.15 lakhs on or before
24.10.2017 and thereafter, the second installment of Rs.15 lakhs is
to be deposited on or before 07.11.2017. If the applicants failed to
deposit the said amount on or before the scheduled dates given by
this Court, then this appeal will be dismissed without referring to
the Court”.
1 of 3
Sayyed 31-IA.13594.2025.doc
4. The operation of the impugned order of Trial Court was
stayed till 8 November 2017, by which the appellants-applicants were to
deposit Rs.30 lakhs in two installments. The order dated 4 October
2017 further states that if the payment is not made before 7 November
2017, then the appeal will be dismissed without reference to the Court.
5. In view of the above order and in view of the fact that the
amount has not been deposited on or before 7 November 2017, the
appeal by self operative order stood dismissed on 8 November 2017.
6. Therefore, the delay of 195 days calculated by the applicants-
appellants by relying on 8 May 2025 order is incorrect. The delay is
from 8 December 2017 till 19 September 2025, which is of more than 7
years. There is no reason given for such a delay. Therefore, the interim
application is dismissed on this ground itself.
7. In any case, the order 4 October 2017 directed the appellants
to deposit Rs.30 lakhs. Nothing has been shown to me that this order
has been modified or challenged in accordance with law. Therefore, the
said order continues and holds field till today. Therefore, even on this
ground, the appeal cannot be restored unless order of 4 October 2017 is
varied in accordance with law.
8. The learned counsel for the applicants-appellants relied upon
the decision in the case of Kayamuddin Shamsuddin Khan vs. State
Bank of India1. In the facts before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
appellants therein had challenged the order passed by the High Court,
whereby the Court had passed an order stating that if the appellants fail
to deposit Rs.75,000/- within two weeks, the appeal shall stand
1 (1198) 8 SCC 676
2 of 3
Sayyed 31-IA.13594.2025.doc
dismissed without reference to Court. It was this order which was
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that such an order could not have been passed. In the instant
case before me, nothing has been shown that the self operative order of
4 October 2017 has been challenged before the higher forum. Till the
order of 4 October 2017 is in force, the present judgment relied upon by
the learned counsel for the applicants is not applicable and this Court
cannot give away relief.
9. For all the above reasons, interim application is dismissed.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/01/2026 15:16:11 3 of 3
Checking your session…