NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT 1881

1)COMPLAINT

2)VAKALATNAMA

3)LIST OF DOCUMENT

4)MEMO OF ADDRESS

5)AFFIDAVIT

LIST OF DOCUMENT
1)NOTICE
2)CHEQUE
3)RETURN MEMO
4)ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIP
5)SPEED POST SLIP
6)BANK SATEMENT

MH011553286201920E
899626753
138810029
56689e360ed144a5
MH011553286201920E
899626753

MH011823394201819E
993249442
MH010460086201920E
928946917
 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No: 2395/2008 &             2397/2008

reported in 2010 DGLS(SC) 407. It is held that “      Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

– Order 21 Rule 90 r/w Section      5 of Limitation Act, 1983 – Objection and

setting aside of Sale       – Limitation condonation of delay – Non-information by

Counsel – Delay in filing the first appeal before District Judge,    Ludhiana, for

setting aside the sale has not been so huge      warranting its dismissal on such

hypertechnical ground – No         sooner the appellant came to know about the

dismissal of its   objection filed before the Executing Court, Under order 21         

Rule 90 of the CPC it made enquiries and filed the appeal –          Attempt should

always be made to allow the matter to be          contested on merits rather than to

throw it on such             technicalities – Matter stands remitted to the executing

court       for deciding the appellants application filed under Order 21       Rule 90

of CPC at an early date on merits – Appeal allowed to             extent – Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 104, Order 21    Rule 66.”

            b.         The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No: 460 / 1987    

reported in AIR1987 Supreme Court 1353 It is held that     “(B)     Limitation Act

(36      of 1963), S-5 – Condonation of delay –         Courts should adopt   liberal
approach – reasons for adopting       such approach stated.”

            c.         Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No: 6271/2010 along with            
Writ Petition     No: 4088/2011 reported in 2012(2) Bom. C.R. 119.     It is held that
“ in the matter of condonation of delay, a pedantic             approach should be
eschewed and one  which further cause of       justice should be adopted rather
than throw it out on    technicalities”

            d.         Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) in Second Appeal No:         

717/2011 reported in 2012(4) Bom. C.R . 802. It is held that “ in       case of

condonation of delay, only length of delay itself is not       only criteria, what

matters is sufficient cause, it is not the case             that by delaying appeals, the

appellant has gained any undue            advantage”

             e.         Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Writ Petition No:         

3062/2011 reported in 2011(5) Bom. C.R 23. It is held that “ it is             settled

principal of law that party should be allowed to       prosecute his remedy on

merits rather than being thrown out on technicalities, a final indulgment can be

given to             petitioner so he can prosecute his application till end”.

            f.          Supreme Court of India in Case No: 484/2005 reported in 2005          

DGLS (Soft) 11. It is held that “the application must not  be         thrown out or

any delay cannot be refused  to condone,      adoption of strict standard of proof

sometimes fails to protract          public justice ”.

            g.         Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No: 7519/2010     reported in

2012(4) Bom. C.R 518. It is held that “ there is            nothing demonstrate that

petitioner deliberately and          intentionally delayed filing the present appeal,

she could not            have in any way benefited by such delay”.




