Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
SACHIN S.DESHMUKH
Ambada Seva Sahakari Sanstha, Ambada, through its President Shri Vishwasrao, S/o. Raghunathrao Khodaskar – Appellant
Versus
Special Recovery Officer & Sales Officer (CB), The Amravati District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's borrowing and default history. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. claims made for condonation of delay. (Para 6) |
| 3. arguments presented regarding the delay in appeal. (Para 8) |
| 4. respondents support the refusal to condone delay. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. court's observations on petitioner's conduct. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. importance of full disclosure in petitions. (Para 13) |
| 7. petition dismissed due to suppression of facts. (Para 14) |
| 8. final judgment on petitions. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. The petitions raise an exception to the order dated 19/03/2021 rendered by the Cooperative Appellate Court, by which civil application seeking condonation of delay of six years has been rejected. Since identical issue is involved in both the petitions, as such are heard together.
3. The petitioner borrowed the loan from the respondent in the year 1998. Eventually he committed default in the year 2008. In the wake of the said default, the proceedings were presented by the respondent No.1 bearing Dispute Nos.78/2010 and 79/2010 for recovery of loan am
An applicant for relief must disclose all material facts candidly; failure to do so results in dismissal of their claim, emphasizing the principle of clean hands.
A party invoking writ jurisdiction must disclose all material facts honestly, as suppression and falsehood invalidate claims for equitable relief.
The court ruled that a delay of 3 ½ years in filing a writ petition was unjustified, emphasizing the need for timely action in legal proceedings.
The sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay is the primary criterion, and the court's function is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and advance substantial justice.
The delay in proceedings cannot be dismissed when there are prima facie merits, and leniency should be applied in construing delays.
Litigants must take responsibility for their legal representation; negligent conduct by an advocate does not negate a party's obligation to remain vigilant about their legal proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
