SARINA ESMERALDA LOPEZ v. DEEPAK MIRCHANDANI AND ANOTHER
IA/8038/2026 · 2026-10-12
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 18518 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 18518 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
21-IA-28582-26 IN AO.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8038 OF 2026 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 28580 OF 2026 Sarina Esmeralda Lopez ...Applicant Versus Deepak Mirchandani And Another ...Respondents _______ Ms. Sarina Esmeralda Lopez, for Applicant/Appellant in person. Mr. Vishal Kanade, Amicus Curiae. Mr. R.R.Sharma a/w. Mr. Prateek S. Kharwar a/w. Mr. Surya Das, for Respondent No.1. Ms. Smita Tondwalkar i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi, for Respondent No.2. _______ CORAM:
AARTI SATHE, J. DATE:
12 OCTOBER 2026 P.C.
1. This interim application has been filed praying for the following reliefs: a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise its powers and allow this Application for Condonation of Delay, condoning the delay of 279 days in filing the Appeal from Order.
2. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that the present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay, in view of the circumstances set out in paragraphs 3 to 10 of the Interim Application.
3. There is no written opposition filed to this Application. Mr. R.R Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent although has Mane JYOTI RAJESH MANE Digitally signed by JYOTI RAJESH MANE Date: 2026.10.14 11:39:24 +0530
21-IA-28582-26 IN AO.DOC orally opposed this Application vehemently, he would not dispute the well settled position in law in a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court in regard to the principles to be followed on condonation of the delay and more particularly he would not dispute that, in the clear facts and circumstances of the case, as set out in the memo of the Application, the Applicant ought not to suffer or be rendered remediless in pursuing the Appeal
4. This Court is of the view that a sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the aforesaid delay.
5. In view thereof, interim application is disposed of in terms of prayer clause (a). Delay is condoned.
6. Office objections if any to be complied within a period of 8 weeks.
7. Interim Application is disposed of. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) Mane