w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Nandlal Gangaram Ranglani v/s Mahak Amit Ranglani & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- MAHAK LIMITED [Active] CIN = U16000DL2007PLC171002

Company & Directors' Information:- AMIT AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1981PTC011918

    Criminal Application Nos. 5808 of 2016, 5809 of 2016, 5810 of 2016 & 5811 of 2016

    Decided On, 20 July 2018

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.V. NALAWADE

    For the Applicant: S.V. Suryawanshi, Advocate. For the Respondents: R2, S.J. Salgare, APP, R1, N.N. Shinde, A.G. Talhar, Advocates.



Judgment Text

1. The first proceeding is filed to challenge the order made on Exh. 13 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 709/2014, which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon. The second proceeding is filed to challenge the order made on Exh. 13 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 712/2014, which is pending in the same Court. The third proceeding is filed to challenge the order made on Exh. 13 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 710/2014, which is pending in the same Court. The last proceeding is filed to challenge the order made on Exh. 13 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 711/2014, which is also pending in the same Court.

2. The main applications are filed for condonation of delay caused in filing complaints for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In delay condonation applications, the accused have produced envelops in which purportedly statutory notices under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act were sent by the complainant to the accused persons. Those envelops are taken in custody by the Court as it is the contention of the accused that those envelops did not contain anything and so, no statutory notices were given by the complainant before filing of the proceedings. When the delay condonation applications came for hearing, aforesaid applications were moved before the Court to open the envelops to ascertain as to whether the statutory notices were present in the envelop. Say of the present respondent, original complainant was sought and the learned Magistrate has made order to open the envelops as Magistrate wants to see the contents of the envelops for deciding the delay condonation applications.

3. The learned counsel for applicants of the present proceedings, original complainant submitted that at present only the delay condonation applications are to be decided and for that there is no need to see the contents of the envelops. He submitted that considering the contention that there was no statutory notice in the envelop, will amount to touching the merits of the matter and that is not permissible at the time of taking cognizance of the matter.

4. It is true that at initial stage only prima facie case is required to be made out by the complainant. However, in a case filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, there are some statutory requirements which need to be complied with for taking cognizance of the matter. If there is no contention in the complaint that statutory notice was sent to accused, the Court can refuse to take cognizance of the matter. The present contention is similar contention as the applicants of delay condonation applications, accused want to show that statutory notices were actually not sent in the envelops. Those envelops were not opened by the accused and they are produced in the Court, according to the accused, in the same condition in which they were delivered to them.

5. For getting the relief of condonation of delay, the applicant is expected to show that there was 'sufficient case' for not filing the proceeding within the period of limitation. This Court had occasion to consider the requirements which need to be satisfied for condonation of delay in a proceeding bearing Second Appeal No. 198/2013 decided at this Bench on 14.3.2014 [Chandrakant s/o. Laxman Kulbhaiyya and Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.]. This Court has made observations for that purpose at para No. 11 to 16 and the observations are are as under:-

"11) Section 5 of the Limitation Act runs as under :-

'5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.-- Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribe period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

Explanation.-- The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertain or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.'

12) In Section 5 at two places the word 'may' is used. This shows that the Curt has discretionary power in this regard. Section 5 further shows that the party seeking extension of prescribed period is required to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal/application and that arose within such period and continued thereafter. Thus, existence of sufficient cause is a condition for use of discretion by the Court.

13) In the case reported as AIR 1962 SC 361 (V 49 C 56) (Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.), the Apex Court has laid down that in construing this section two important considerations should be followed viz (a) that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree holder to treat the decree as binding between parties and this right, which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time should not be lightly disturbed; and, (b) that if sufficient cause for causing delay is shown, discretion is given to the Court to condone the delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been conferred on the Court in order that judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice.

14) The provision of section 5 and the observations made by the Apex Court show that there are two considerations in section 5 of the Limitation Act. The provision needs to be considered from both the angles mentioned by the Apex Court. So far as the construction of expression 'sufficient cause' is concerned, the law is well settled. Section 5 does not require a 'good cause' but requires 'sufficient cause' which is something more than good cause. The expression 'sufficient cause' is not defined but it is laid down by various Courts that it must mean a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the section. Any cause which prevents the parties approaching the Court within time is sufficient. Here only it needs to be observed that the cause must have arisen within prescribed time and the cause must have continued beyond that. In ascertaining cause, the test of reasonable man in normal circumstance needs to be applied. The burden in this regard rests on the party seeking condonation of delay. He needs to discharge it by adducing evidence.

15) The Apex Court has laid down that the purpose of provision is to advance substantial justice and so the Court using discretion must prima facie ascertain whether denying of relief would amount to frustrating meritorious case and denying substantial justice. As care needs to be taken in this regard, it can be said that the expression 'sufficient cause' is widely elastic. In one case, a ground may not be acceptable as sufficient ground for condonation of delay but the same ground in other case, in view of facts and circumstances of that case, may be a valid ground for condonation of delay. In one case if Court finds that the party seeking condonation has arguable case, there is prima facie merit in the matter, the Court may hold on the basis of explanation given by the party that sufficient cause is shown. In other case even when the ground is the same, if Court finds that condoning the delay would unnecessarily cause harassment to the other side, it will be defeating the interests of justice, the party applying for condonation has is no arguable case, the Court may refuse to condone the delay.

16) The provision of section 5 of the Act has given discretionary power to the Court and the party applying for condonation has no right as such. In a case the party applying for condonation of delay may be in a position to show 'sufficient cause' and there may be a ground in that regard which cannot be disputed. However, in such a case also the Court has to exercise discretion judiciously and the exercise must be to advance substantial justice. The Court is expected to give reasons for refusing to condone the delay or for giving relief of condonation of delay. This needs to be done in systematic manner as observed above. The reasons must be on the grounds mentioned to make out sufficient cause and there must also be reasons on the point of prima facie merits of the case and bona fides. In the case like present one, when there was no cause of action for the suit and the matter was already decided finally, the Court is not expected to use discretion in favour of the party applying for condonation of delay. In such a case the delay does not deserve to be condoned. The District Court has not touched the rival contentions to ascertain prima facie merits of the case. However, the District Court has not committed error in dismissing the application filed by the present appellants."

6. The aforesaid observations and the law laid down by the Apex Court show that condonation of delay is within the discretion of the Court and the Court is expected to keep in mind the aforesaid things. If the J.M.F.C. forms opinion that the envelops contain nothing and no statutory notices were sent by the complainant to the accused, this circumstance can be consider

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ed by the J.M.F.C. at the time of deciding the delay condonation applications. It cannot be said that consideration of such circumstance amounts to touching of the merits of the complaints for final disposal. If this circumstance is considered, the Court will form opinion as to whether there is some arguable case in the complaint itself for proceeding ahead like issuing process in the matter. If the J.M.F.C. has formed the opinion that such exercise is required in the present matter, there is nothing wrong in it. No particular procedure is prescribed for deciding the delay condonation application and it is up to the Magistrate to follow the procedure required in view of peculiar circumstance. This Court holds that there is nothing wrong in the order made by the J.M.F.C. No interference is warranted in the orders made by the learned J.M.F.C. In the result, all the proceedings are dismissed. The learned J.M.F.C. is expected to decide the delay condonation applications within four months from the date of receipt of this order.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

06-05-2020 Amit Malviya Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
30-04-2020 Rakhi Paul Versus Sri Amit Paul High Court of Gauhati
21-04-2020 For the Appellants: Amit Saxena (Senior Advocate) assisted by Abhishek Srivastava, Advocates. For the Respondent: Ajit Kumar, Punit Khare, Advocates. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-04-2020 Amit Dwivedi Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Amitabh Versus Amit Rghunandan Saran Sharma & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
02-03-2020 M/s. Binjusaria Ispat Private Limited Versus Amit Kumar Agarwal High Court of for the State of Telangana
28-02-2020 Amit Singh @ Amit & Others Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-02-2020 Anita Versus Amit High Court of Delhi
24-02-2020 H.H. Jyotendra Sinhji Vikramsinhji Versus Amit Roy High Court of Karnataka
20-02-2020 Amit Sehrawat @ Lamba V/S State High Court of Delhi
12-02-2020 Amit Kishan Bagade & Others Versus Bombay Environmental Action Group & Others Supreme Court of India
30-01-2020 Amit Kumar Mishra Versus The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi & Another) High Court of Delhi
17-01-2020 Amit Misra Versus Securities & Exchange Board of IndiaSEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
09-01-2020 Amit Ranjan Mukherjee Versus State Bank of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-12-2019 Amit Chopda Versus Pradeep Verma Chhatisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Raipur
14-11-2019 Amit Luhach, Akhilesh Yadav & Another Versus State of NCT Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
13-11-2019 Amit Yadav @ Raju Versus State High Court of Delhi
01-11-2019 Amit Nag & Others Versus M/s. Ramprastha Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-10-2019 ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd. Versus Amit Vijay Salvi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-10-2019 Amit Gupta & Another Versus M/s. Vatika Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-10-2019 Amit Kumar Versus Meenu Bawa High Court of Punjab and Haryana
22-10-2019 Bijay Kumar Singh & Others Versus Amit Kumar Chamariya & Others Supreme Court of India
22-10-2019 Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority & Others Versus Amit Kumar & Others Supreme Court of India
16-10-2019 Union Territory, Chandigarh Versus Amit Kumar @ Rachu & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
13-09-2019 Amit Kumar Dutta Versus The Taj Hotels Resorts & Palaces, The Indian Hotels Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
12-09-2019 Amit Singh Chadha Versus Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-09-2019 Amit Khandelwal & Another Versus Hem Chand Aluria High Court of Delhi
28-08-2019 Amit Pandey Versus Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
21-08-2019 Amit Ahuja Versus Shubh Realty, Builder And Developers & Others Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai
07-08-2019 Amit Jalan Versus Chairman cum Managing Director, National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
30-07-2019 Dr. Amit Kumar Verma & Others Versus All India Institute of Medical Sciences High Court of Madhya Pradesh
25-07-2019 Om Prakash Versus Amit Choudhary & Others High Court of Delhi
12-07-2019 Manya Education Private Limited Versus Amit Mathur & Others High Court of Delhi
03-07-2019 H.H. Jyotendra Sinhji Vikramsinhji Versus Amit Roy High Court of Karnataka
02-07-2019 Shilpa Amit Kotia & Others Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
03-06-2019 Amit Soni & Another Versus Umang Realtech Private Limited & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-05-2019 M/s. Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Amit Dahanukar & Another High Court of Delhi
13-05-2019 AMIT Versus The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
08-05-2019 M/s. United Welding Works Versus Amit Kumar Chamaria & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-05-2019 Amit Gupta & Others Versus State of J&K & Another High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
26-04-2019 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Versus Amit Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-04-2019 Amit Poddar Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
03-04-2019 Amit Mines Private Limited Versus Maithan Alloys Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-04-2019 Amit Tiwari Versus Deepsikha Tiwari High Court of Madhya Pradesh
30-03-2019 Pooran Singh @ Amit Kumar Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
27-03-2019 Amit Kumar Singla & Others Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
26-03-2019 Amit Kumar Versus Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government Of India, Hakimpet, Hyderabad, rep. by Inspector General (Training Sector) & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
26-03-2019 Anita Amit Agrawal & Others Versus Union of India Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Department of Road Transport and Highways, through its Secretary & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
12-03-2019 Amit Nehra Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
11-02-2019 Swastik Paper & Packaging Versus Amit Upadhyaya High Court of Delhi
07-02-2019 Amit Kumar Ghosh & Another Versus M/s. Mayank Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-02-2019 Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Dhanbad Branch Versus Amit Pandey & Another High Court of Jharkhand
06-02-2019 Central Bank of India Versus Amit Kumar Singh High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-02-2019 Amit Katyal Versus Manjula Khullar & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
29-01-2019 S.C. Sekaran Versus Amit Gupta & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
25-01-2019 Amit Kumar Shrivastava & Others Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
15-01-2019 Amit Kumar V/S Joginder Singh and Others. High Court of Punjab and Haryana
12-12-2018 Amit Kumar Lath Versus Dilip Singh High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-12-2018 Amit Kumar Singhal & Others Versus M/s Kohinoor Plywoods Pvt Ltd & Another High Court of Gauhati
19-11-2018 Prakash Chandra Sharma Versus Amit Joshi High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
26-10-2018 Dr. Amit Kumar Versus Dr. Sonila & Others Supreme Court of India
07-09-2018 Amit Upadhyaya Versus State of JK & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
31-08-2018 Amit Mittal Versus DLF Limited & Others Competition Commission of India
29-08-2018 Amit Vig Versus M/s. Unitech Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2018 Amit Ganesh Thakur & Another Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Higher Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-08-2018 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Amit Jain National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-08-2018 Amit P. Modi Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-08-2018 Darshan Lal Versus Amit Dhigani & Another High Court of Delhi
06-08-2018 Amit Kumar Shaw Versus Chate International Academy Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-08-2018 Amit Abh Bhasin Versus Hemlata Bhasin High Court of Delhi
18-07-2018 Amit Chawla Versus The Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
09-07-2018 Amit Jain Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India & Another High Court of Delhi
04-07-2018 State NCT of Delhi Versus Amit Sharma & Others High Court of Delhi
04-07-2018 Sudhira Minj Versus Amit Anuj Minj High Court of Jharkhand
02-07-2018 Amit Versus State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
12-06-2018 Amit Rastogi & Another Versus Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-06-2018 Amit Versus Nupur High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
28-05-2018 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Amit Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
17-05-2018 Amit Kumar Versus Firm Kapoorchand Bhagchand High Court of Rajasthan
08-05-2018 Amit Talwar V/S CCE, Delhi-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
04-05-2018 Amit Steels and Others V/S C.C.E., Raipur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
27-04-2018 Amit Saxena Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
17-04-2018 Ratan Kumar Mukhopadhyay Versus Amit Basu & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-04-2018 Dr. Amit Singhal Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
12-04-2018 Amit Jaste Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
02-04-2018 Managing Director, CESC Ltd. & Another Versus Amit Sen Gupta & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
19-03-2018 A.P. Amit Kumar Versus A.P. Manjunath High Court of Karnataka
14-03-2018 Amit Sharma Versus Parul & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
12-03-2018 Meenu Devi Versus Amit Kumar High Court of Jharkhand
06-03-2018 Amit Khanra Versus Phalguni Das & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
22-02-2018 Amit Mohan Bhatia Versus Maratha Sahkari Bank Ltd., Matushree Co-operative Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Through its Recovery Officer Bhalchandra Nathuram Raut & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-02-2018 Kali Charan, Sarvesh Kumar, Chander Bhan, Amit @ Mangru, Bimlesh Versus State High Court of Delhi
08-02-2018 Amit Versus State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-02-2018 Amit Chowdhury V/S Anamika Chowdhury and Others. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-01-2018 Amit Krupashankar Sharma Versus Collector, Panchmahals & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
18-01-2018 Amit Paharia Versus State of Rajasthan Through PP & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
11-01-2018 AA Hospitality LLP., (The Open Box), Represented by its Designated Partner, Amit Bhagwan Ahuja & Another Versus Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Represented by its Commissioner & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-01-2018 Rakesh Bihari & Others Versus Amit Prakash & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-01-2018 Amit Kumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Labour Secretary Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
18-12-2017 Amit Dutta Versus Mrinal Ray National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box