Bombay High Court
MR. FRANCIS S/O. MATHAIS MENEZESversusALL INDIA BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court condoned the 19‑day delay and allowed the interim application.
Summary
The applicant filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 19‑day delay in filing an appeal against Order (Stamp) No.485 of 2026. The respondents raised only oral opposition and did not contest the established Supreme Court principles on condonation of delay. The court examined the memo and found the delay not to be gross and the reasons satisfactory, constituting sufficient cause. Consequently, the court held that justice required condoning the delay. The interim application was allowed, the appeal and a stay application were scheduled for hearing on 29 September 2026, and no costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 19 days in filing an appeal can be condoned under established jurisprudence.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- appeal filing
- interim application
- civil procedure
- interest of justice
Judgment
1 of 2 902.IA.816.2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.816 OF 2026
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) NO.485 OF 2026
Francis Mathais Menezes Applicant
versus
All India Bank Officers Association and others Respondents
_______
Mr.Jaideep Singh Khattar with Mr.Ther Rangwala and Mr.Bhagyesh Witkar i/by
The Fort Circle for Applicant.
Mr.Bhavesh Parmar with Mr.Rahul Gaikwad, Ms.Komal Singh i/by Gravitas Legal
for Respondent
_______
CORAM : AARTI SATHE, J.
DATE : 29th August 2026
P.C.
1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on this Interim Application which
is filed praying for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid Appeal from Order. The
delay which is sought to be condoned is of 19 days. The Respondents are represented by
Mr.Bhavesh Parmar, learned counsel. There is no written opposition filed to this
application. Mr.Bhavesh Parmar although has orally opposed this application, he would
not dispute the well settled position in law in a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court
in regard to the principles to be followed on condonation of the delay and more
particularly he would not dispute that, in the clear facts and circumstances of the case, as
set out in the memo of the application, the Applicant ought not to suffer or be rendered
Digitally signed
MANISH
SURESHRAO
by MANISH
SURESHRAO
remediless in pursuing the Appeal from Order.
THATTE
THATTE Date: 2026.08.29
15:13:53 +0530
2. In the aforesaid circumstances, having perused the memo of the application and
M.S.Thatte
2 of 2 902.IA.816.2026.DOC
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 from Order. It is hence in the interest
of justice that the delay is condoned.
3. The Interim Application is hence allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Interim
Application No.816 of 2026 stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
4. The Appeal from Order along with Interim Application for stay be listed on 29 th
September 2026.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondents seeks to file reply to the Interim Application
for stay. It be filed before the adjourned date of hearing and copy thereof be served on the
advocate for the Applicant/Appellant.
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
M.S.Thatte
Checking your session…