Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Order Date: 11 September 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: Pagadandi Education Foundation (a registered charitable trust) represented by Managing Trustee Mr. Vivek Omprakash Chandel, and Mr. Tushar Chhotalal Joshi; both Indian residents.
- Respondents: 1) Jivartna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, represented by its Director Mr. Jay Himat Gala; 2) The State of Maharashtra.
- Nature of Proceedings: Petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) seeking to set aside the Sessions Court order dated 15 Oct 2022 which rejected:
- Application for condonation of a 72‑day delay in filing a Criminal Revision Application (Criminal M.A. No. 1472/2022).
- Application for stay of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 40/SS/2022 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Bhoiwada, Mumbai (process issued on 21 Feb 2022 under Section 138 r/w 141 NI Act).
- Background Facts:
- The original complaint was filed by Jivartna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd. under Section 138 NI Act.
- Process was issued on 21 Feb 2022; summons served on petitioners on 20 Apr 2022.
- Bailable warrants were issued against the petitioners on 4 May 2022 after non‑appearance.
- Petitioners claim they only became aware of the warrant on 22 Jun 2022 and obtained certified copies of the proceedings on 23 Jun 2022.
- Revision applications (Criminal M.A. 1472/2022 and 1473/2022) were filed on 2 Aug 2022, exceeding the 90‑day period from the alleged date of knowledge.
- Petitioners’ Submissions:
- Argued that the delay was not intentional and should be condoned, citing Supreme Court judgment (State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan, 2008 AIR SCW 5692) and Allahabad High Court judgment (Jitendra Alias Dhansu Vs. Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, AIR Online 2018 All 345).
- Stated that they only learned of the warrant on 22 Jun 2022 and filed the condonation application promptly thereafter.
- Respondents’ Submissions:
- Asserted that summons were properly served on 20 Apr 2022 and that petitioners deliberately avoided appearing, thereby causing the warrants.
- Contended that petitioners’ claim of ignorance of the warrant was false and that they failed to seek cancellation of the warrant despite appearing through counsel on 18 Jul 2022 and 2 Aug 2022.
- Highlighted that petitioners gave misleading statements regarding non‑service of the Section 138 notice.
- Court’s Observations:
- The court noted that the bailable warrant was issued on 4 May 2022 after verification of service of summons.
- Petitioners appeared before the trial court only through their advocates on 18 Jul 2022 and 2 Aug 2022, without seeking cancellation of the warrant.
- No satisfactory explanation was provided as to how petitioners learned of the warrant on 22 Jun 2022.
- The petitioners’ application for condonation of delay was filed on 2 Aug 2022, indicating a gap of over a month after they allegedly obtained knowledge, suggesting an intention to delay.
- The court emphasized that while condonation of delay should be liberal, it cannot be granted where litigants conceal material facts or misuse the legal process to frustrate proceedings, especially in matters under the NI Act which deal with financial obligations.
- The petitioners were found to have misled the court, made false statements, and failed to disclose true facts.
Final Outcome
- The High Court dismissed Criminal Writ Petition No. 4084 of 2022, upholding the Sessions Court’s orders rejecting both the condonation of delay and the stay of proceedings.
Topics: Legal Delay, Negotiable Instruments Act