Bank Of Maharashtra vs Neelam Thakkar And Anr
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 356 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Limitation for an appeal runs from the date on which the impugned order is pronounced, and the subsequent uploading of the order on the website does not postpone its commencement; where the appellant's counsel was present when the order was passed through virtual mode, a delay beyond the condonable period cannot be condoned and the application for condonation and the appeal are liable to be rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Bank of Maharashtra ...Appellants Versus Neelam Thakkar & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Nishant Awana, Ms. Rini Badoni, Ms. Nitya Sharma, Advocates. For Respondents : WITH Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 358 of 2025 & I.A. No. 1353 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: Bank of Maharashtra ...Appellants Versus Girish Thakkar & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Nishant Awana, Ms. Rini Badoni, Ms. Nitya Sharma, Advocates. For Respondents :
WITH Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 375 of 2025 & I.A. No. 1402 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: Bank of Maharashtra ...Appellants Versus Atul R. Thakkar & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Nishant Awana, Ms. Rini Badoni, Ms. Nitya Sharma, Advocates. For Respondents : ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
27.03.2025: I.A. No. 1346/2025, 1353/2025 & 1402/2025
These applications have filed for condonation of delay of 21 days' delay
in filing the appeal. Order was passed on 04.12.2024 and these appeals have
been e-filed on 24.01.2025. Ld. Counsel for the appellant after obtaining
instructions submits that no certified copies have been applied by the
appellant. He however submits that order was uploaded on 26.12.2024 and the
appeal was filed thereafter within time. The order impugned reject the
application filed by the appellant under Section 95. The counsel for the
appellant was also present when the order was passed through virtual mode.
Mere fact that order was subsequently uploaded cannot arrest the running of
the limitation with commenced from the day when the order was passed on
04.12.2024. The delay in filing the appeal being beyond condonable period, We
are unable to allow the application for condonation of delay. Delay condonation
applications are rejected. Memo of appeals are also rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/NN
2 of 2 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 356, 358 & 375 of 2025
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free