Bombay High Court
WORLD FEDERATION OF CARDIAC IMAGING AND CLINICAL CARDIOLOGY TRUST AND ANRversusMEDIVISION INFORMEDIA PVT.LTD. AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the discretionary order condoning the 15‑day delay was proper and therefore dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) that condoned a 15‑day delay in filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The original complaint was e‑filed within the statutory period but was rejected because a physical copy was not submitted within seven days. The petitioners argued that the re‑filing of the same complaint along with an application for condonation was impermissible, while the respondent contended that the delay was minimal and the trial court’s discretion should not be disturbed. The court examined the record, noting that the complaint had indeed been filed within the limitation and that the delay of 15 days was duly condoned by the JMFC and affirmed by the Sessions Judge. Finding no merit to interfere with the discretionary exercise of jurisdiction, the court dismissed the writ petition. Consequently, the order condoning the delay stands affirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Judicial Magistrate First Class erred in condoning a 15‑day delay in filing a Section 138 complaint that was initially rejected for lack of a physical copy.
- Whether a complaint re‑filed through e‑filing together with an application for condonation of delay is maintainable.
- Whether the discretionary order of the trial court can be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138
Subjects
- Section 138 NI Act
- condonation of delay
- e‑filing
- Article 227
- discretionary jurisdiction
- criminal procedure
Judgment
39-WP-4096-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ARJUN WRIT PETITION NO.4096 OF 2025
VITTHAL
KUDHEKAR World Federation Of Cardiac ...Petitioners
Digitally signed by
ARJUN VITTHAL Imaging And Clinical Cardiology Trust & Anr.
KUDHEKAR
Date: 2026.08.18
Versus
22:08:53 +0530
Medivision Infomedia Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
——————
Mr. Hemant Kenjalkar a/w Pallavi Bule & Jinal Mehta, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Somnath Iyer (Through Video Conferencing), for Respondent No.1.
Mr. S. S. Ghag, APP, for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J.
Date: August 18, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Kenjalkar, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners and Mr. Iyer, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent
No.1.
2. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the challenge is to the Order dated 21st August 2024 passed by
the learned JMFC, 7th Court, Dadar, Mumbai, in Miscellaneous
Application No.541 of 2024 which was filed for condonation of delay of
15 days in lodging a Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”). In the Petition, the Order dated 16th
June 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil
and Sessions Court at Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai, in Criminal Revision
Arjun 1
39-WP-4096-2025.doc
Application No.767 of 2024, by which the said Order dated 21st August
2024 was confirmed, is also challenged.
3. It is the submission of Mr. Kenjalkar, learned Counsel for the
Petitioners that the Complaint, which was filed through e-filing, was
within limitation. However, the said Complaint was rejected on the
ground that a physical copy of the Complaint was not filed. He,
therefore, submits that filing of second Complaint which is e-filed
alongwith the application for condonation of delay is not maintainable.
4. Mr. Iyer, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that, as
the e-filed Complaint was rejected on the ground that the physical copy
was not filed within stipulated period, a fresh Complaint has been e-
filed along with an application for condonation delay. He submits that
the learned Trial Court allowed the said application for condonation
delay. He further submits that, in any case, the delay was only 15 days
and, therefore, no interference in the discretionary order passed by the
learned Trial Court is warranted.
5. Perusal of the record shows that the Complaint under Section 138
of NI Act was e-filed on 16th February 2024. It is an admitted position
that the said Complaint was filed within the prescribed period. The said
Complaint was thereafter rejected on the ground that physical copy had
not been filed within seven days. Thereafter, upon rejection of the
Complaint on 2nd March 2025, the Complainant i.e. the Respondent,
Arjun 2
39-WP-4096-2025.doc
filed an application for condonation delay and along with Complaint
which had been e-filed earlier was re-filed. In these circumstances, there
was a delay of 15 days and the same has been condoned.
6. Thus, this is a case where the same Complaint has been re-filed
along with an application for condonation delay. In any case, the learned
JMFC has condoned the delay of 15 days. The said Order which is
discretionary has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge.
7. In the facts and circumstances, no case is made out for
interference in the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
[Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]
Arjun 3
Checking your session…