Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1384 (BOM)

SHREE VITHAL RAKHUMAI CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD v. NUSRAT NAAZ IBRAHIM

CRMA/100/2026 · 2026-07-02

Criminal Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2nd July, 2026 Suzana IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.100 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1231 OF 2025(FILING) Shree Vithal Rakhumai Cooeprative Credit Society Ltd. … Applicant Versus Nusrat Naaz Ibrahim … Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1232 OF 2025(FILING) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1232 OF 2025 (FILING) Shree Vithal Rakhumai Cooeprative Credit Society Ltd. thr. its Manager … Applicant Versus Nusrat Naaz Ibrahim … Respondent. Mr Jatin Ramaiya, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr Cannigia A. Carvalho, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 2nd JULY, 2026. P.C. 1. Registry to waive office objections and register the matter. 2026:BHC-GOA:1254 2nd July, 2026 2. The present Application is filed for condonation of delay in filing the Criminal Appeal and leave to appeal challenging the Judgment of Conviction and Order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Merces, Sitting at Ponda, Goa. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant submits that delay of 26 days has been caused in filing of the criminal appeal and leave to appeal in this Court. The delay is minor and has been sufficiently explained by the Applicant in paragraphs 3 to 6 and 10. He therefore prays that the delay of 26 days to be condoned and no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent if the appeal and the application for leave to appeal is registered. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent vehemently opposes the application and states that the delay has not been sufficiently explained. There is no bonafide reason and the entire blame has been shifted on the Advocate from whom legal advice was taken. As there is no sufficient explanation coming forth which can be said that the delay can be condoned, he prays for dismissal of the application. 5. I have gone through the application and I have also heard both the Advocates. Admittedly, the delay is only of 26 days, which, in my 2nd July, 2026 view is a minor delay for which explanation has been provided by the Advocate in the present application. Interest of justice can be served by imposing costs of Rs.5000/- upon the Applicant to be paid to the Respondent within a period of three weeks from today. The affidavit of payment of costs be filed in this Court on or before the next date. 6. The Registry is directed to register the application for leave to appeal and list the same on 13.08.2026. HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. Signed by: MARIA SUZANA REBELLO Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 03/07/2026 09:51:45