BLOOMBERG L. P. AND ANOTHERversusMR. SACHIN DEV DUGGAL THR. ITS REPRESENTATIVE MR. KIMSUK KRISHNA SINHA

                                                                             55 - IA-7343-2026.DOC



 JYOTI                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 RAJESH
 MANE                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
JYOTI RAJESH
MANE
Date: 2026.10.01
11:07:50 +0530                         INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7343 OF 2026
                                                       IN
                                      APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 26131 OF 2026



                      Bloomberg L. P. and Another                                     ...Applicants

                             versus

                      Mr. Sachin Dev Duggal Thr. Its
                      Representative Mr. Kimsuk
                      Krishna Sinha                                                     ...Respondent

                                                        _______
                      Mr. Aadil Parsurampuria a/w Mr. Smit Solanki, Advocates i/by Mayur Shetty C/o
                      Kocchar and Co., for the Appellants.
                      Ms. Maithili P. a/w Ms. Aditi Tiwari a/w Mr. Sachin Singh a/w Mr. Rohan B.,
                      Advocates, i/by MZM Legal LLP for Respondents.
                                                             _______

                                                 CORAM:         AARTI SATHE, J.

                                                 DATE:          29th SEPTEMBER 2026

                      P.C.

                      1.          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 11 days.

                      2.       Upon service, the Respondent is represented by Ms. Maithili P., learned

                      counsel. No written opposition has been filed to the present application. Although

                      Ms. Maithili P., has vehemently opposed the application, she would not dispute the

                      well-settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments



                      Mane                                     1 of 2
                                                          55 - IA-7343-2026.DOC



governing the consideration of an application for condonation of delay. In

particular, she 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 (b).

5.     To enable the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent to file

the Letter of Authority/Vakalatnama within a period of one week from today and

the Affidavit in Reply to the aforesaid within a period of four weeks from today.

6.     Rejoinder, if any to be filed by the Appellant on or before the next date.

7.     Stand over to 30 November 2026.



                                                                 (AARTI SATHE, J.)




Mane                                       2 of 2