KISHORI GOVIND NAIKversusVPK URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD REP BY ITS RECOVERY OFFICER AND ANR

2026:BHC-GOA:1982
                                             4 WPCR 381 2026

                vinita

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                           CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.381 OF 2026

             KISHORI GOVIND NAIK                                   ... PETITIONER
               Versus
             VPK URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT
             SOCIETY LTD REP BY ITS RECOVERY
             OFFICER AND ANR                                        ... RESPONDENTS


             Mr. Tanmai Gawas, Advocate for the Petitioner.
             Mr. Jatin Ramaiya, Advocate and Mr Omkar Thakur, Advocate for
             Respondent No.1.
             Mr. Preetam Talaulikar, Additional Public Prosecutor with Ms Sara
             Desai, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.


                                 CORAM:- AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.
                                 DATED :- 5th October, 2026

             P.C.
        1.     Heard Mr. Gawas, t h e learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
        2. The present Petition challenges the order dated 30.7.2026 passed by the
            learned Additional District Judge, whereby the application filed by the
            Petitioner seeking condonation of delay in payment of costs, as directed
            by the learned Judge vide order dated 29.06.2026, came to be dismissed.
           3. The Petitioner has challenged the judgment and order passed by the
               learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in proceedings under Section
               138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Admittedly, the appeal was
               filed by the Petitioner with a delay of 138 days. The




                                                 Page 1 of 4
                                               5th October, 2026
                                  4 WPCR 381 2026


Petitioner, therefore, filed an application seeking condonation of delay
before the learned Judge. The learned Judge was pleased to allow the
said application, subject to payment of costs, as directed vide order
dated 29.06.2026.
2.     It is an admitted position that the Petitioner did not pay the
costs as directed within a period of 15 days from the date of the order
dated 29.06.2026. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that, owing
to her age and occupation, she could not make payment of the costs
within the stipulated period.
3.   Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, having regard to
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the Petitioner
may be shown some indulgence. It is submitted that, if the Petition is
not allowed, the Petitioner would be deprived of a statutory right.
Learned counsel further submits that the Petitioner has a good case on
merits and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Judge be quashed
and set aside and the Petitioner be permitted to pay the costs as
directed by the learned Judge vide order dated 29.06.2026 and the
appeal be heard on merits.
4.    Mr. Ramaiya, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent,
has opposed the Petition on various grounds, including the ground that
no indulgence ought to be shown to the Petitioner, particularly in view
of the approach adopted by the Petitioner, which has resulted in
multiplicity of proceedings.
5.    I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the respective parties and have perused the Petition.


                                     Page 2 of 4
                                   5th October, 2026
                                   4 WPCR 381 2026


6.    I do not find any arbitrariness or perversity in the orders passed
by the Learned Judge. The orders are passed judiciously.


7.    However, I am inclined to accept the submission made on behalf
of the Petitioner having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the present case. In particular, given the Petitioner’s age and
occupation, some indulgence ought to be shown to her. I also find
substance in the submission that mere failure to pay the costs within
the period stipulated by the order dated 29.06.2026, in the facts of the
present case, ought not to deprive the Petitioner of a substantive right
arising under a statutory provision.
8.     In view of the aforesaid, the Petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a).
9.     The Petitioner shall pay the costs as directed by the learned
Sessions Judge vide order dated 29.06.2026 within a period of two days
from today.
10.   It is made clear that, in the event the Petitioner fails to pay the
said costs within a period of two days from today, no further
indulgence shall be shown to the Petitioner.
11. The Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
12. This       order   will   be   digitally         signed   by   the   Private
      Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act
      on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this
      order.



                                       Page 3 of 4
                                     5th October, 2026
                                 4 WPCR 381 2026

                                        AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.




Signed by: VINITA VIKAS NAIK
Designation: Private Secretary
                                    Page 4 of 4
Date: 06/10/2026 14:08:00
                                  5th October, 2026