Bombay High Court
SHRI SATERIDEVI MATSYA VYAWASAYA VIVIDHA KARYAKARI SANSTHA LTD.versusRAMA M BHAGAT AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the 88‑day delay in filing the leave application was sufficiently explained and was therefore condoned.
Summary
The applicant, the original complainant, filed an interim application seeking condonation of an 88‑day delay in filing a leave to appeal application after a dismissal order dated 09‑Nov‑2022. The applicant explained that the certified copy of the Roznama was only received on 24‑Feb‑2023, causing the delay. The respondent submitted an affidavit arguing that the reason was insufficient to justify condonation. After hearing both sides, the court examined the length of the delay and the applicant’s explanations, finding a sufficient cause. Consequently, the court allowed the application and condoned the delay, directing the matter to be listed for further proceedings on 10‑Sep‑2026.
Issues considered
- Whether the 88‑day delay in filing the leave application can be condoned?
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- leave to appeal
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
- procedural law
Judgment
20-IA-2451-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2451 OF 2023
IN
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (PVT) (ST) NO. 7872 OF 2023
NAVNATH Shri Sateridevi Matsya Vyawasaya Vividha ...Applicant
SITARAM
WAGHMARE Karyakari Sanstha Ltd.
Digitally signed by
Versus
NAVNATH
SITARAM Rama M Bhagat And Anr. ...Respondents
WAGHMARE
Date: 2026.08.20 ****
18:42:17 +0530
Mr. Shantanu V. Kadam i/b Gaurav Parkar for the Applicant.
Mr. G. Praveen Babu a/w Mr. G. Saikrishna Suvilash for the Respondent
No.1
Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for the Respondent/State.
****
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 20th AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
2. This is an application filed by the Applicant-(Original
Complainant) seeking condonation of 88 days delay in filing leave
application.
3. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
impugned order of dismissal of complaint was passed on 09.11.2022
and certified copies were immediately applied on the same day. He
submitted that the delay is primarily caused because the certified copy
of the Roznama was received on 24.02.2023 after which the present
application is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 has tendered the
affidavit-in-rely in the Court with its copy served on the other side.
Relying on the said affidavit, he contends that delay is not properly
explained. He submitted that the reason of not getting Roznama is not
Navnath Waghmare 1
20-IA-2451-2023.doc
sufficient to condone the delay.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
considering the extent of delay and the averments in the application,
sufficient cause is made out. The application is accordingly allowed.
Delay is condoned.
6. List ALP(Stamp)/ 7872/2023, on 10.09.2026.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Navnath Waghmare 2
Checking your session…