Bombay High Court
M/S WEST COAST MARITIME PVT LTD. AND ORSversusM/S CASA LAXMI MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT LTD AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The High Court held that the condonation order was valid and not liable to be set aside under Articles 226/227.
Summary
The petitioners, original accused in several cheques‑bounce cases totaling Rs.2 crore, challenged a 26 December 2019 order that condoned delay in withdrawing complaints filed in Pune and re‑filing them in Mumbai. They argued that the trial court had proceeded without hearing them and that the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should be tried in the jurisdiction of the bank. The court noted that the petitioners were absent, no reply was filed, and the initial filing was timely; the delay pertained only to the transfer of the complaints. It found no perversity or illegality in the condonation order and held that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 was not attracted. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the condonation of delay in withdrawing and re‑filing criminal complaints under Section 138 NI Act is valid without hearing the accused.
- Whether the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 can be invoked to set aside the trial court’s order.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 227
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- criminal procedure
- Section 138 NI Act
- jurisdiction
- writ petition
- extraordinary jurisdiction
Judgment
12-WP-5839-2024+.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5839 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5840 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4894 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4895 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5841 OF 2024
M/s. West Coast Maritime Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. …Petitioners
Versus
M/s. Casa Laxmi Management Services Pvt. Ltd.
& Ors. …Respondents
Ms. Tahzeen M. Khan i/b. The Legal.com, for the Petitioners.
Mrs. M. R. Tidke, for the Respondent-State
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 25th AUGUST 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Ms. Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners and Mrs. Tidke, learned APP appearing for the
Respondent-State.
Page 1
Sonali
12-WP-5839-2024+.DOC
2. By these Writ Petitions, the challenge is to the legality and
validity of the order dated 26th December 2019 passed in the
Criminal Miscellaneous Applications by the learned Joint Civil
Judge Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Pune, seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaints. By the
impugned orders dated 26th December 2019, the learned Trial
Court has condoned the delay. The said orders have been
challenged by the original accused by filing the respective Criminal
Revision Applications. The learned Additional Sessions Judge
rejected the said Criminal Revision Applications by the impugned
orders dated 20th November 2023.
3. Perusal of the record shows that the cheque amount in each
of these cases is Rs.40,00,000/-. Thus, aggregate amount of
cheques is Rs.2 crores. These complaints were earlier filed in the
Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4 at Pune,
Pune. The said complaints were transferred to 33 rd Court, Ballard
Pier, Mumbai by order dated 7th November 2014 as per the
decision in the case of Dashrath Rupsing Rathod vs. State of
Maharashtra.1
1 (2014) 9 SCC 129
Page 2
Sonali
12-WP-5839-2024+.DOC
4. Accordingly, all these complaints were renumbered in 33 rd
Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai. Thereafter, the Central Government
has issued two ordinances on 15th June 2015 and 22nd September
2015 respectively.
5. It is the contention raised in the Applications seeking
condonation of delay that the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 shall be tried only by the Court
within whose jurisdiction the bank is located. Therefore, the
Complainant filed Applications on 22 nd December 2025 seeking
withdrawal of the complaints and to file it before the proper Court
and accordingly, the Complainant visited the Court of Metropolitan
Magistrate to collect the files on 7th January 2026. However, at the
time of collecting the files, it was found that the date of the orders
is 14th October 2025, by which the complaints were allowed to be
withdrawn for filing it before the appropriate Court.
6. Thus, in these circumstances, there is some delay in filing
the criminal complaints, which has been condoned by the
impugned orders.
Page 3
Sonali
12-WP-5839-2024+.DOC
7. The only submission made by the learned Counsel appearing
for the Petitioners i.e. original Accused is that the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate passed the orders without hearing the
Petitioners. However, in paragraph No.8 of the impugned order
dated 26th December 2019, it is specifically recorded that the
Respondents i.e. the present Petitioners are absent and none has
appeared for the Petitioners to argue and contest the Applications.
Admittedly, no reply has been filed to the Delay Condonation
Applications.
8. Admittedly, initial filing of the complaints are within time.
There is delay in withdrawal of the complaints from one Court and
filing in another Court as more particularly, set out hereinabove. In
any case, no perversity or illegality is pointed out in the impugned
orders.
9. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference in the
impugned orders under the extraordinary and discretionary
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India.
Page 4
Sonali
12-WP-5839-2024+.DOC
10. The Writ Petitions are dismissed, however, with no order as
to costs.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Digitally
signed by
SONALI
SONALI MILIND
MILIND PATIL
PATIL Date:
2026.08.29
19:06:29
+0530
Page 5
Sonali
Checking your session…