Mainframe Premises Chsl v. Hamon Shriram Cotrell And ORS
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15575 OF 2025 SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Mainframe Premises CHSL ... Petitioner V/s.
Hamon Shriram Cotrell & Ors.
... Respondents SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Date: 2025.11.26 15:20:29 +0530 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15577 OF 2025 Mainframe Premises CHSL ... Petitioner V/s.
M/s. Prime Focus Ltd & Ors.
... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15578 OF 2025 Mainframe Premises CHSL ... Petitioner V/s.
M/s. Prime Focus Ltd & Ors.
... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15579 OF 2025 Mainframe Premises CHSL ... Petitioner V/s.
M/s. Prime Focus Ltd & Ors.
... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15581 OF 2025 Mainframe Premises CHSL ... Petitioner V/s.
M/s. Prime Focus Ltd & Ors.
... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15582 OF 2025
Mainframe Premises CHSL ... Petitioner V/s.
M/s. Prime Focus Ltd & Ors.
... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15583 OF 2025 Mainframe Premises CHSL ... Petitioner V/s.
M/s. Prime Focus Ltd & Ors.
... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15594 OF 2025 Mainframe Premises CHSL ... Petitioner V/s.
Hamon Shriram Cotrell & Ors.
... Respondents Mr. Prashant P. Kulkarni, for the Petitioner. Mr. Abhilash Panickar a/w Ms. Adrianna, for Respondent No.1 in all WPs.
Mr. A. C. Bhadang, AGP, for State - Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in WP/15575/2025.
Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP, for State - Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in WP/15577/2025.
Mr. M. M. Pable, AGP, for State - Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in WP/15578/2025.
Ms. M. S. Srivastava, AGP, for State - Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in WP/15579/2025.
Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, AGP, for State - Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in WP/15581/2025.
Ms. Savina R. Crasto, AGP, for State - Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in WP/15582/2025.
Ms. S. V. Nimbalkar, AGP, for State - Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in WP/15583/2025.
Ms. S. D. Chipade, AGP, for State - Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in WP/15594/2025.
CORAM
: AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : NOVEMBER 26, 2025 P.C.:
1.
The petitioner-Industrial Premises Society had filed an application under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 ("the MCS Act"), which came to be rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a revision application along with an application for condonation of delay. 2.
By the impugned order, the Revisional Authority rejected the application for condonation of delay on the sole ground that the reason stated therein could not be treated as sufficient cause. The impugned order, however, does not show brief reasons indicating due application of mind. While rejecting an application for condonation of delay, the Revisional Authority is required to assign brief reasons demonstrating consideration of the material placed before it, which is absent in the present case. Therefore, it is necessary that the Revisional Authority shall reconsider the petitioner's application for condonation of delay and pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties.
3.
The parties shall appear before the Revisional Authority on 9 December 2025 at 10:30 a.m.
4.
The Revisional Authority shall decide the application for condonation of delay afresh, by assigning brief reasons.
5.
With these clarifications, all the writ petitions stand disposed of.
6.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)