Bombay High Court
Primezone Developers Private Limited vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 24 March, 2026
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2026:BHC-AS:15265-DB
sns /DTG 6-iast-6888-2020+.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.6888 OF 2020
IN
APPEAL (ST) NO.6886 OF 2020
Primezone Developers Private Limited ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Arshad Shaikh, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Ranjit A. Agashe, Mr. Rajendra
Jain, Mr. Pranil Lahigade, Mr. Aniket Pardeshi i/by Ms. Vinsha Acharya for the
Applicant/Appellant.
Mr. Manish Kumar (through VC) for the Appellant in Apeal/932/2022.
Mr. Atul Rajadhyaksha, Senior Advocate, i/by Mr. Avinash B. Avhad, Spl.P.P. for
the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Avinash B. Avhad, Spl.P.P. for the Respondent No.3.
Mr. Arvind Lakhawat a/w Mr. Nimeet Sharma & Mr. Vinit Vaidya i/by MZM
Legal LLP for the Respondent No.4.
Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate, a/w Ms. Pooja Gera, Mr. Jas Sanghavi,
Mr. Vikas Poojary, Ms. Linzy Sharan i/by PDS Legal for the Respondent No.5 in
Apeal(St)/6886/2020.
Mr. Mahadeo Kirvale, C.A., present.
P.I. Shaikh Bilal, EOW, Mumbai, present.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
DATE : 24th March 2026 P.C.:-
1) By this Application the Applicant seeks condonation of delay of 872 days in preferring an Appeal against an Order dated 6 th February, 2018 passed below Exhibit 42 in MPID Special Case No.1 of 2014.
2) Heard Mr. Shaikh, learned senior Advocate for the Applicant, Mr. 1/6 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:26:58 ::: sns /DTG 6-iast-6888-2020+.doc Rajadhyaksha, learned senior Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. Avhad, for Respondent No.3 and Mr. Godbole, learned senior Advocate for Respondent No.5 in Appeal (st) No.6886 of 2020. Perused record.
3) Applicant is the landlord of the property in question, the attachment whereof has been made absolute by the impugned order. According to the Applicant, while auctioning the said property, it was undervalued and ultimately sold to Respondent No.4, the auction purchaser, at a price far below the prevailing market value. The Applicant further states that he never received any notice or summons in the said MPID proceedings. It is his case that any such notice, if issued, may have been sent to the registered address of the Appellant, of which the Directors of the Appellant had not been aware for the preceding three years, as they had been operating from an alternate address at Assandh, Karnal, Haryana.
3.1) The Appellant's office had ceased operations as its Managing Director had absconded, leaving the entire management in disarray. As a consequence, the Appellant Company and its Directors were rendered effectively incapacitated and were unable to receive any notice from the competent authority, even if such notice had been issued or served. It is further stated that the Applicant first became aware of the impugned order dated 6th February 2018 through the website of Respondent No.4, where the Applicant's property was put up for auction in July 2020. Immediately thereafter, the Applicant applied for a certified copy of the impugned order in August 2020. 2/6 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:26:58 :::
sns /DTG 6-iast-6888-2020+.doc However, the same could not be furnished promptly on account of the COVID- 19 pandemic. Upon receipt of the certified copy, the present appeal came to be filed on 18th August 2020, with a delay of 872 days.
4) Mr. Shaikh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Applicant, submitted that the Government of India had, in March 2020, declared COVID- 19 as a national pandemic, which continued till March 2021. He submitted that, during this period, limitation stood excluded and therefore, the Applicant is entitled to the benefit thereof. According to him, upon exclusion of approximately 150 days from the total delay of 872 days, the effective delay would stand reduced to about 620 days. He further submitted that, if the delay is not condoned, the Applicant would suffer grave and irreparable prejudice and be deprived of its statutory right to pursue an appeal under Section 11 of the MPID Act. It was contended that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but occasioned by the circumstances set out hereinabove. In these circumstances, Mr. Shaikh prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits.
5) Mr. Rajadhyaksha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, submitted that Respondent No.2, the Competent Authority, Mr. Ravindra B. Rajput, has filed an affidavit dated 14th February 2023 on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 opposing the present application for condonation of delay. He submitted that the said affidavit may be treated as the opposition on behalf of all the three Respondents.
3/6 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:26:58 :::
sns /DTG 6-iast-6888-2020+.doc 6) After perusing the said Affidavit, we are not only astonished but
flabbergasted noting the stand adopted by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.1, being the State of Maharashtra, is expected to act fairly and reasonably, not only towards the accused but also towards victims of crime. While we can understand the position adopted by Respondent No.2, the Competent Authority, who conducted the auction of the subject property resulting in the sale in favour of Respondent No.4, the same cannot be said of Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
6.1) Insofar as Respondent No.1-State of Maharashtra is concerned, it is a matter of record and indeed of consistent experience that, the State regularly approaches this Court with considerable delay in filing petitions, appeals, and other proceedings. This Court, bearing in mind that the State is the largest litigant, has more often than not, adopted a liberal approach in condoning such delay. It is equally a matter of record that compliance with directions issued by this Court, including filing of replies within stipulated timelines, is often not adhered to. A recent instance is the order dated 5th March 2026 passed in Writ Petition No.763 of 2013, where the State failed to file its reply for over twelve years despite repeated directions, and this Court, while imposing trivial costs, nevertheless condoned the delay. 6.2) In this backdrop, the opposition by the State of Maharashtra to the present application for condonation of delay is wholly untenable and unconscionable and does not commend acceptance.
4/6 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:26:58 :::
sns /DTG 6-iast-6888-2020+.doc 6.3) As regards Respondent No.3, the Investigating Agency, we find
that, instead of adopting a fair and balanced approach, it has chosen to oppose the application in a manner that aligns with Respondent No.4. Such a stand is neither expected nor justified.
7) Perusal of the affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 indicates that, apart from opposing the condonation of delay, Respondent No.2 has also raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the appeal. In our view, the affidavit travels beyond the limited scope of the present proceedings and appears to have been filed more for convenience than necessity. Respondent No.2, being an authority constituted under the MPID Act, was expected to adopt a fair and circumspect approach, particularly in proceedings of this nature, rather than raising issues which fall for consideration at a later stage.
8) Mr. Godbole, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 opposed the Application. He submitted that, Mr. Naresh Kumar Naharia, Director of Respondent No.5 has filed a detailed Affidavit opposing the condo- nation of delay. The Affidavit of Mr. Naresh Kumar Naharia, Director of Respondent No.5, indicates that, the Appellant had knowledge of the attachment as far back as 2017 and is therefore, guilty of suppression of material facts, thereby disentitling itself to any equitable relief.
9) However, since we are presently concerned with the larger issue of sale of the property at a gross undervalue, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to not delve into this aspect at this stage. 5/6 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:26:58 :::
sns /DTG 6-iast-6888-2020+.doc
10) Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Om Sakthi Sekar vs. V.
Sukumar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.3362 of 2026, decided on 13th March 2026), has held that the mere confirmation of a sale does not render the process entirely immune from judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court observed that the contention that judicial review is completely excluded upon confirmation of sale cannot be accepted in absolute terms. It has been further held that the requirement of a fair, transparent, and value-based recovery process must co- exist with the principle of finality governing confirmed sales. The Supreme Court has thus clarified that judicial review of a sale is permissible by a higher Court in appropriate cases.
11) Be that as it may, having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, the reasons set out in the Application and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the delay deserves to be condoned.
12) Delay is accordingly condoned and Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
13) List the Appeal (ST) No.6886 of 2020 on 9th April 2026.
14) Ad-interim relief, if any granted earlier, to continue till the next date.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.) 6/6 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:26:58 :::