Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2024 DAILYLAW 2226 (BOM)

M/S WEST COAST MARITIME PVT LTD. AND ORS v. M/S CASA LAXMI MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT LTD., AND ANR

WP/4894/2024 · 2026-08-25

body2024

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

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 33rd 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 33rd 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 22nd 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.] Page 5 Sonali SONALI MILIND PATIL Digitally signed by SONALI MILIND PATIL Date: 2026.08.29 19:06:29 +0530