Umesh Maldevbhai Bani and 4 Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Rupal Umesh Bani
Party Details
- Umesh Maldevbhai Bani and 4 Ors.
- Maldev Kanabhai Bani
- Radhaben Maldevbhai Bani
- Kishan Maldevbhai Bani
- Nehal Kishan Bani
- State of Maharashtra and Rupal Umesh Bani
Case Summary
Umesh Maldevbhai Bani and 4 Ors. and Maldev Kanabhai Bani filed Case No. 299 in the District Court on 3 Aug 2023 against State of Maharashtra and Rupal Umesh Bani. The case has undergone 4 hearings over 2 months. The case is currently pending. 1 order has been issued in this matter.
Hearing History (4)
- 27OCT 2023DisposedView Order ↗
Judge: Judge, City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
- 13OCT 2023OrderView Order ↗
Judge: Judge, City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
- 12SEP 2023HearingView Order ↗
Judge: Judge, City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
Orders (1)
- 27OCT 2023OrderView Order ↗
Order No: 1
Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗
Cri.MA 299/23 :: 1 :: ORDER MHCC050040302023 IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT DINDOSHI (BORIVALI DIVISION), GOREGAON, MUMBAI CRIMINAL MISCELLENOUS APPLICATION NO.299 OF 2023 IN CC No.
137/DV/2022.
1.
Umesh Maldevbhai Bani, Age 52 years, Occ: Textile Broker, Address 303, Aradhana CHS.
Ltd., Happy Home Society, J.
S.
Road, Dahisar (W), Mumbai 400068.
2.
Maldev Kanabhai Bani, Age 76 years, Occ: Textile Business, Address: Bldg.
No.
1/C, Flat No.
11, Rustomji Regency, Rustomji Irani Marg, J.
3.
Radhaben Maldevbhai Bani, Age 75 years, Occ: Housewife, Address: Bldg.
4.
Kishan Maldevbhai Bani, Age 46 years, Occ: Textile Business, Address: 303, Aradhana CHS Ltd., Happy Home Society, J.
Road, Dahisar (W), Mumbai 400 068.
5.
Nehal Kishan Bani, Age 35 years, Occ: Business, Address: 303, Aradhana CHS.
Ltd., Happy ...Applicants.
Cri.MA 299/23 :: 2 :: ORDER Home Society, J.
Road, Dahisar W.
Mumbai 400068 Versus 1.
State of Maharashtra 2.
Rupal Umesh Bani, Age 46 years, Occ: Textile Garment, Address Building No.
11, Rustomjee Regency, Rustomjee Irani Marg, J.
Road, Dahisar (W), Mumbai 400068. ...Respondents.
Ld.
Adv.
Mr.
Ashwin Duggal for the applicants.
Ad.
APP Ms.
Usha Jadhav for the State/ respondent No.1 Ld.
Rohan Bansal for the respondent No.
2 CORAM : HIS HONOUR ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE, M.H PATHAN, COURT ROOM NO.10.
DATE : 27th October, 2023.
ORAL ORDER This is an application filed by the applicants for condonation of 120 days delay for filing of the appeal against the impugned order passed by the Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate, 68th Court, Borivali, Mumbai, dated 17/12/2022 in CC No.
Advocate for the applicants submitted that they changed their earlier advocate after the date of 17th March 2023. arch 2023.
Thereafter, he filed his vakalatnama on 26/05/2023 and during inspection of the file on 26/05/2023, he came to know about order dated 17/12/2022 and thereafter he applied for a certified copy of the said order on 30/05/2023.
Cri.MA 299/23 :: 3 :: ORDER Therefore, 120 days delay caused for filing appeal against the impugned order of the Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate.
Per contra, Ld.
Advocate for the respondents submitted that it is the duty of the applicants to take care about their litigation.
They cannot entire blame against the advocate.
He has placed reliance upon the case of Moddus Media Pvt.
Ltd.
V/s Scone Exhibition Pvt.
Ltd. , Case No. :RFA No.
497 of 2017, in the Delhi High Court, 2017 Legal Eagle(DEL) 2612: 2017 Gojuris(DEL) 2612, equivalent Citation : 2017(3) KerLJ 13.
Hence, he paryed to reject the application.
It appears that appellants have not filed appeal within limitation against the impugned order of the Ld.
It is clear that delay caused due to fault of appellants/applicants, the appeal is not filed within limitation and delay of 120 days caused for filing of the appeal.
However, for fair justice and opportunities to both sides, it is just and proper to condone the 120 days delay on condition, costs of Rs.
3000/ which is payable to respondent No.2.
Hence, I pass the following order.
ORDER 1.
The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.299 of 2023 is allowed and delay of 120 days is hereby condoned, subject to costs of Rs.
After depositing amount of costs in the court, appeal be registered as per rule, after due verification.
Cri.MA 299/23 :: 4 :: ORDER 3.
The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
299 of 2023 stands disposed of accordingly. (M.
H.
PATHAN) Dt.
27/10/2023 Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Div. ivali Div., Dindoshi, Mumbai Dictated on : 27/10/2023 Transcribed on : 27/10/2023 Checked & Signed by HHJ on : 27/10/2023 Digitally signed by MAKSUD KHAN HUSEN KHAN PATHAN Date: 2023.11.01 17:25:42 +0530 Cri.MA 299/23 :: 5 :: ORDER CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.” UPLOAD DATE AND TIME 01/11/2023 AT 05.20 pm NAME OF STENOGRAPHER S.S.Chudji Name of Judge (with Court room no.) HHJ Shri M.H.
Pathan, City Civil & Sessions Court, Borivali Div., Dindoshi. (C.R.No.10) Date of Pronouncement of JUDGEMENT/ORDER 27/10/2023 JUDGEMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 27/10/2023 JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on 01/11/2023