Bombay High Court
SABAR SHAPUR IRANI AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- MADHAV JAMDAR
Holding
The court quashed the order rejecting the delay condonation and allowed the condonation subject to payment of costs to the respondent.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ under Article 227 challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting their application for condonation of delay in filing a revision against a 2021 magistrate order. They argued that the delay of about 100 days was caused by the advanced age (94 years) of one petitioner and the pendency of earlier proceedings. The respondent contended that the petitioners, including an advocate, should have been more diligent and that senior citizenship is not a sufficient ground for condonation. The High Court examined the reasons for delay, the petitioners' circumstances, and the prejudice to the respondent, and found merit in granting relief. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order, allowed the condonation of delay, and conditioned the relief on payment of Rs.1,50,000 to the respondent within four weeks, otherwise dismissing the writ.
Issues considered
- Whether the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting the delay condonation application is legally valid.
- Whether a delay of approximately 100 days can be condoned on the ground of a petitioner's advanced age and other circumstances.
- Whether the imposition of a cost condition is appropriate in granting condonation of delay.
Subjects
- delay condonation
- criminal procedure
- Article 227
- senior citizen
- cost award
- miscellaneous application
- high court
- revision
Judgment
919-CRI.WP-2620-2025.DOC
Akash Tayde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2620 OF 2025
Sabar Shapur Irani And Ors. …Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra And Anr. …Respondents
Mr. Anosh F. Irani i/b Gayatri N. Gokhale, for the Petitioners
Ms. S. M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Ujjwal Gandhi, for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. Sunil Rane, PSI, Juhu, Police Station, present.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 17TH JUNE 2026
PC:-
1. Heard Mr. Irani, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners and Mr. Gandhi, learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.2.
2. By the present Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of
order dated 25th March 2025 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, (Borivali Division),
Dindoshi, Mumbai in Miscellaneous Application No.397 of 2024.
By the impugned order the Delay Condonation Application filed by
Page 1
919-CRI.WP-2620-2025.DOC
Akash Tayde
the Petitioners has been rejected in preferring the revision
challenging order dated 05th April 2021 passed by learned
Metropolitan Magistrate Court.
3. Mr. Irani, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners
submitted that, although, the order issuing process is dated 05th
April 2021 in the month of January - February, 2024 the summons
were served upon the Petitioners and thereafter efforts were made
to settle the dispute, however as the said efforts failed, earlier Writ
Petition was filed on 20th August 2024 and the said Writ Petition
was dismissed by granting liberty to file appropriate proceedings
by order dated 23rd September 2024 and thereafter Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No.397 of 2024 was filed before the City
Civil and Sessions Court, seeking Condonation of Delay on 10th
October 2022. Thus, it is submitted that considering the pendency
of the Writ Petition there is delay of 96 days. It is further submitted
that the delay has been caused as one of the Petitioner is 94 years
old.
4. On the other Mr. Gandhi, learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.2, strongly opposed the granting any relief in Writ
Petition. It is submitted that the Petitioner No.3 is an Advocate and
therefore, the Petitioner should have been more vigilant. It is
Page 2
919-CRI.WP-2620-2025.DOC
Akash Tayde
further submitted that, although, the Petitioner No.1 is Senior
Citizen of 94 years old that cannot be a ground for delay.
5. Perusal of the record shows that, although there is some
substance in the contention raised by the learned Counsel
appearing for the Respondent No.2 that the Petitioner should have
been more diligent, however, reasons are given for delay
condonation. The delay is about 100 days. The Petitioner No.1 is a
senior citizen of 94 years old. Thus, case is made out for grant of
relief to the Petitioners subject to payment of cost to the
Respondent No.2.
6. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, case is made out
for granting condonation of delay. However, it is required to be
noted that the proceedings are filed in the year 2014 before the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court and considering the overall
facts and circumstances and the hardship which has been caused
to the Respondent No.2, following order is passed :-
ORDER
I. Order dated 25th March 2025 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court,
Borivali Division, Dindoshi in Miscellaneous Application
No.397 of 2024 is quashed and set aside.
Page 3
919-CRI.WP-2620-2025.DOC
Akash Tayde
II. Miscellaneous Application No.397 of 2024 seeking
Condonation of Delay is allowed on the condition that the
Petitioners pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the
Respondent No.2 as a cost within a period of four weeks
from today. It is made clear that if the said cost is not paid
within a period of four weeks then in that event the Writ
Petition stands dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 4
Checking your session…