Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S. G.E.MOTORS INDIA LIMITED. versus M/S. SIMPLICITY ENGINEERS PVT.LTD.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/s. G.E.Motors India Limited. v. M/s. Simplicity Engineers Pvt.Ltd. - CM-9553-C-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 10799 (20 November 2006)

Civil Misc. Application No.9553-C of 2006 in

Regular Second Appeal No.3756 of 2006.

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Civil Misc.Application No.9553-C of 2006 in

Regular Second Appeal No.3756 of 2006.

Date of decision:21.11.2006.

M/s. G.E.Motors India Limited.

...Appellant.

Versus

M/s. Simplicity Engineers Pvt.Ltd.

...Respondent.

...

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. N. Aggarwal.

...

Present: Mr.R.K.Chhibbar,Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Chhibbar Advocate and Mr.Manoj Bajaj Advocates for the appellant.

Mr.Sanjeev Pabbi Advocate for the respondent.

...

Judgment.

S. N. Aggarwal, J.

This application has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 82 days in filing the appeal. Reasons given in the application are that during the pendency of appeal, (in the learned learned Lower Appellate Court), the management of the appellant/Company had changed. Decision regarding the responsibility Civil Misc. Application No.9553-C of 2006 in

Regular Second Appeal No.3756 of 2006.

of the pending cases was not taken as to which management will handle the pending cases. In this process, there was a delay of 82 days in filing the appeal. The application was supported by an affidavit.

In the written reply filed by the respondent, preliminary objections were pleaded. The application was also contested on merits and its dismissal was prayed.

The learned counsel for the appellant made reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v.Mst.Katiji and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353 in which it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that application for condonation of delay should be dealt with liberally. The following principles of law were laid down for considering the application for condonation of delay:- "1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be Civil Misc. Application No.9553-C of 2006 in

Regular Second Appeal No.3756 of 2006.

applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.

5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so."

Reference was also made to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as State of Bihar and others v.Subhash Singh, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1390 in which it was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Court need not adopt strict standard of proof of every day's delay in cases of condonation of delay.

Even the delay of 82 days has been properly explained by the appellant by pleading that there was a change in the management of the appellant-Company and,therefore, it had not taken the decision as Civil Misc. Application No.9553-C of 2006 in

Regular Second Appeal No.3756 of 2006.

to which management would handle the appeals or pending cases.

Therefore, this application is accepted and the delay of 82 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

November 21,2006. ( S. N. Aggarwal )

Jaggi Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.