1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO 243 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO 4283 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO 244 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO 4276 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO 245 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO 4279 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO 246 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO 4285 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO 247 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO 4281 OF 2009 Oriental Bank Of Commerce .. Applicant V/s Bostan Education Software Technology Ltd. and others .. Respondents Shri Prasad Das i/b Goenka Law Associates for the applicant Shri Rakesh Pandey i/b Shri Ashwin Ankkad & Asso. For Respondents 2 and 4 Shri Tajesh H. Bhatt for Respondent No.3 CORAM: MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: 24th July, 2009 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 2. All these applications are preferred by the applicant Bank for condonation of delay of 284 days in filing an appeal against the order of dismissal of Complaint in default dated 15.1.2008 passed by the MM court, Mumbai. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the previous Advocate who was attending the matter in the Magistrate Court did not inform about dismissal of the Complaint to the Applicant Bank and because of his negligence, the applicant bank could not file the appeal against the dismissal within limitation. He has submitted that the applicant is a public sector establishment, involving public money and hence, the application for condonation of delay is to be allowed. 4. Delay of 284 days is a long period. Considering that the petitioner is a Bank-Public Sector Establishment, it would have been otherwise condoned. However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the endorsement on the certified copy of the order of dismissal disclosing the date of application for copy as 29.1.2008, and the copy was received on 6.2.2008 on payment of Rs.52. This xerox certified copy of the order dated 15.1.2998 forms Exh.B of the Appeal. This shows that the petitioner Bank had 3 knowledge about the dismissal of the complaint on 15.1.2008. Despite of this knowledge, the applicant has contended in the applications for condonation of delay that the Applicant was not aware of the fact of dismissal till November, 2008 and so it is the negligence of its Advocate and because of negligence of its Advocate Applicant should not suffer. 5. Thus, the averment in respect of reason or cause of delay as mentioned in the applications is blatantly false . The applicant has not come before this Court with true facts that though the applicant had knowledge, the applicant was absolutely inert and neglected to take legal recourse in time. The applicant Bank has made a false statement before the Court and has tried to mislead the Court. In such circumstances the applications for condonaton of delay stand rejected. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) jpc/-