Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BIJU AND COMPANY, DOOR NO.31/1, MEDICAL versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BIJU AND COMPANY, DOOR NO.31/1, MEDICAL v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF - ST Rev No. 324 of 2003 [2007] RD-KL 13324 (18 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

ST Rev No. 324 of 2003()

1. BIJU AND COMPANY, DOOR NO.31/1, MEDICAL
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.V.GIRI

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :18/07/2007

O R D E R

H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.

C.M.Appln.No.604 of 2003 & S.T.Rev.No.324 of 2003

Dated, this the 18th day of July, 2007

ORDER

K.T.Sankaran, J.

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. It is stated in the affidavit as well as the accompanying petition that the delay is 62 days. In the affidavit it is stated thus:

"It is submitted that the judgment of the Tribunal is dt.17.9.2001. It was stated that copy had been communicated to the Authorised Representative. But, the same was misplaced in the office of the Authorised Representative. An application for fresh copy was thereafter made on coming to know of the order and this was received on 10.11.2002."

2. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein it is stated that the impugned order was communicated to the authorised representative of the petitioner on 4.12.2001 and it was duly acknowledged by him and there is a delay of 825 days in filing the Revision. This statement is not denied by the petitioner by filing any reply. Moreover, the affidavit accompanying the petition for condonation of delay would indicate that the copy was received though no date was mentioned in the affidavit. Even assuming that what is stated by the petitioner is correct, the petitioner is not entitled to exclude the time elapsed after receipt of copy of the order. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondent has to be accepted. The petitioner has not satisfactorily explained S.T.Rev.324/2003 2 the delay. Accordingly the application seeking condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the revision petition is also dismissed. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.T.SANKARAN)

JUDGE

vns


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.