Bombay High Court
MR. VENUGOPAL BALKRISHNA PILLAI AND ANOTHERversusSTANDARD CHARTERED BANK
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court condoned the 20‑day delay and permitted the amendment of the respondent’s address.
Summary
The appellants, Mr. Venugopal Balkrishna Pillai and another, filed an appeal against Standard Chartered Bank 20 days beyond the prescribed period and sought condonation of the delay along with permission to amend the respondent's address in the cause title. The respondents waived service and did not file a written opposition, though their counsel opposed the application. The Court examined the well‑settled Supreme Court principles on condonation of delay and noted that the delay was not gross and was justified by the reasons set out in the application. Accordingly, the Court granted condonation of the 20‑day delay, allowed the amendment of the respondent’s address, and ordered the appeal to be listed for admission, with no costs awarded. The interim application was disposed of in the applicant’s favour.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 20 days in filing an appeal can be condoned under established Supreme Court jurisprudence.
- Whether the appellant may be permitted to amend the address of the respondent in the cause title.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- amendment of pleadings
- interim application
- civil appellate jurisdiction
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
28-IA-6026-26 @AOST.DOC
JYOTI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAJESH
MANE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
RAJESH MANE
Date: 2026.08.17
19:19:12 +0530
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6026 OF 2026
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 18931 OF 2026
Mr. Venugopal Balkrishna
Pillai And Another ...Applicants
In the matter between:
Mr. Venugopal Balkrishna
Pillai And Another ...Appellants
Versus
Standard Chartered Bank ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Vinay Shingada, for Applicants.
Mr. R.L.Motwani, for Respondent No.1.
_______
CORAM: AARTI SATHE, J.
DATE: 17 AUGUST 2026
P.C.
1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant seeks leave to amend
the address of the Respondent in the cause title. Leave, as prayed for, is granted.
Amendment shall be carried out forthwith.
2. Respondents waive service.
3. Re-verification is dispensed with.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on this Interim Application
seeking condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid Appeal. The delay sought to be
condoned is of 20 days.
2. Upon service, the Respondent is represented by Mr. Motwani, learned
counsel. No written opposition has been filed to the present application. Although
Mr. Motwani has vehemently opposed the application, he would not dispute the
well-settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments
Page 1 of 2
Mane
28-IA-6026-26 @AOST.DOC
governing the consideration of an application for condonation of delay. In
particular, he would not dispute that, in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, as set out in the application, the Applicant ought not to suffer or be rendered
remediless in pursuing the Appeal.
3. In the aforesaid circumstances, having perused the memo of the application
and considering the period of delay not being very gross, in my opinion, the
reasons as set out certainly provide for an appropriate justification and a sufficient
cause shown by the applicant in regard to the delay in filing the appeal. It is hence
in the interest of justice that the delay is condoned.
4. The Interim Application is hence allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
5. The Appeal accordingly be listed for admission, subject to removal of
objections, if any, to be removed within eight weeks from today.
6. Interim application stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
7. List the appeal from order on 18 August 2026 .
8. Reply affidavit of the Respondents, if any, be served on all the parties.
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Mane
Checking your session…