Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 13320 (BOM)

BLOOMBERG L. P. AND ANOTHER v. MR. SACHIN DEV DUGGAL THR. ITS REPRESENTATIVE MR. KIMSUK KRISHNA SINHA

IA/7343/2026 · 2026-09-29

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

55 - IA-7343-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7343 OF 2026 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 26131 OF 2026 Bloomberg L. P. and Another ...Applicants versus Mr. Sachin Dev Duggal Thr. Its Representative Mr. Kimsuk Krishna Sinha ...Respondent _______ Mr. Aadil Parsurampuria a/w Mr. Smit Solanki, Advocates i/by Mayur Shetty C/o Kocchar and Co., for the Appellants. Ms. Maithili P. a/w Ms. Aditi Tiwari a/w Mr. Sachin Singh a/w Mr. Rohan B., Advocates, i/by MZM Legal LLP for Respondents. _______ CORAM: AARTI SATHE, J. DATE: 29th SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on this Interim Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid Appeal. The delay sought to be condoned is of 11 days. 2. Upon service, the Respondent is represented by Ms. Maithili P., learned counsel. No written opposition has been filed to the present application. Although Ms. Maithili P., has vehemently opposed the application, she would not dispute the well-settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments Mane 1 of 2 JYOTI RAJESH MANE Digitally signed by JYOTI RAJESH MANE Date: 2026.10.01 11:07:50 +0530 55 - IA-7343-2026.DOC governing the consideration of an application for condonation of delay. In particular, she would not dispute that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as set out in the application, the Applicant ought not to suffer or be rendered remediless in pursuing the Appeal. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, having perused the memo of the application and considering the period of delay not being very gross, in my opinion, the reasons as set out certainly provide for an appropriate justification and a sufficient cause shown by the applicant in regard to the delay in filing the appeal. It is hence in the interest of justice that the delay is condoned. 4. The Interim Application is hence allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). 5. To enable the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent to file the Letter of Authority/Vakalatnama within a period of one week from today and the Affidavit in Reply to the aforesaid within a period of four weeks from today. 6. Rejoinder, if any to be filed by the Appellant on or before the next date. 7. Stand over to 30 November 2026. (AARTI SATHE, J.) Mane 2 of 2