Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Cotton Marketing ... vs Satish Narayanrao Gawande on 24 March, 2021
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
1
wp6694.2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.6694/2018
Maharashtra State Cotton Marketing Employees Cooperative Spinning
Mill Limited, Akola
..Vs..
Satish Narayanrao Gawande
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
Shri A.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S.S. Dhengale, Advocate for the respondent.
CORAM :- SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATED :- 24.3.2021.
Hearing is conducted through Video Conferencing and all the learned Advocates agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.
2. Heard Shri A.R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.S. Dhengale, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Upon consideration of the referral order, it appears to us that the conflict of views which has been referred to us by framing one question cannot be effectively resolved unless another question, which according to us appears naturally from the referral order and also from the conflicting views of different Benches, is framed and answered.
4. The conflict of views between different Benches has two dimensions. The first dimension relates to making of the application for setting aside ex parte order after a period of 30 days from the date of the ex parte order but within a period of 30 days from the date of 2 wp6694.2018.odt receiving a copy of that order. Question on this aspect has already been framed and referred to us for it's answer. However, the second aspect pertaining to the applications filed after expiry of a period of 30 days from the date of receiving copy of the order has not been dealt with in the referral order. In para 15 of the referral order, the learned Judge has considered this second aspect of the matter and also expressed his prima facie opinion that there appears no bar or prohibition to entertain such application if made after a period of 30 days of receipt of the copy of order. However, no question as to whether or not such applications could be dealt with in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been framed. We are of the view that the question dealing with this second dimension of the conflict of views is necessary. Shri A.R. Deshpande and Shri Dhengale also state that they have no objection if second question is framed and accordingly, we frame an additional question for it's answer as under:-
"Whether an application received after 30 days of the receipt of copy of the order could be dealt with in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, so that in appropriate cases, the delay could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?"
5. Put up for hearing on the additional question on 1 st April, 2021.
JUDGE JUDGE
Tambaskar.
Digitally signed by
Nilesh Nilesh Tambaskar
Tambaskar Date: 2021.03.24
18:05:57 +0530