bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. CRI. CRI. APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2008 (FOR (FOR (FOR CONDONING DELAY) CONDONING DELAY) CONDONING DELAY) IN IN IN CRI. CRI. CRI. APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2008 (FOR (FOR (FOR RESTORATION) RESTORATION) RESTORATION) IN IN IN CRI. CRI. CRI. APPLICATION NO. 1186 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO. 1186 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO. 1186 OF 2006 Chandrakant B. Garware ... Applicant (Accused No.2) v/s Gill & Co. Ltd. & anr. ... Respondents Mr.S.V.marwadi i/by M/s.Legasis Partners for the applicant. Mr.Ramsinghani with Ms.Swati Pandit and Mr.Amit Joshi i/by M/s.Mulla & Mulla for respondent No.1. Mr.P.A.Pol, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 20TH JUNE, 2008 20TH JUNE, 2008 20TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Criminal Application No.49 of 2008 has been filed for condoning the delay in filing Criminal Application No.48 of 2008 for restoring Criminal Application No.1186 of 2006 which was dismissed on 23.11.2005. There is a delay of 796 days in filing the application for restoration. The applicant has stated in the application that they were unaware of the main application having been dismissed for default. It is 2 submitted that the application was dismissed since his advocate’s clerk failed to check the board. Besides that, it is submitted that the firm representing the applicant had shifted their office and the matter was unattended because of certain changes in the constitution of the firm. 2. The application is opposed vehemently by the respondents mainly on the ground that the applicants are not appearing in the trial Court and that the applicants were aware of the dismissal of the criminal applications immediately after they were dismissed. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondents that the trial has been pending for a long number of years without fructifying into any result. The learned advocate for the respondents submits that no purpose would be served by restoring the criminal application after so many years. He submits that the applicant can face the trial which has been pending for a long period of time. 4. After hearing the advocates for the parties and on considering the reasons mentioned in the application, I am of the view that the following order would meet the ends of justice:- O R D E R R D E R R D E R 3 (i) Criminal Application No.49 of 2008 is allowed. Delay condoned. (ii) Criminal Application No.48 of 2008 for restoration is allowed. (iii) Both the applications are allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to the respondent No.1 as a condition precedent. (iv) Costs to be paid within a period of two weeks from today. 4. Ad-interim relief granted on 25.4.2005 to continue. 5. Criminal Application No.1186 of 2006 to be placed for admission on 7.7.2008.