Writ petition challenging a 2011 award dismissed for being barred by laches and misconceived, rejecting the argument that pendency of a review application justified the delay.
Writ petition dismissed for being barred by laches and misconceived.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42910 of 2019
Petitioner :- Rajendra And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yagyadeo Sharma,Deepika Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya,Ramendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
Heard Sri Y.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the award dated 18.04.2011 now in the year 2020. No explanation has been given as to why the petitioners have approached this Court after such a long period.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, furnishes explanation that against the judgment in the case of Greater NOIDA vs Dharam Singh and others, passed in First Appeal No. 847 of 2003, decided on 08.09.2009, a review application was filed by the Greater NOIDA, which was finally rejected by this Court vide judgment and order dated 04.01.2017, therefore it is submitted that since the review application was pending, the judgment could not be said to be final and after the decision in the review application this writ petition has been filed.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted, as mere pendency of the review application would not correct the laches on the part of the petitioners, as the award is of the year 2011.
The writ petition, being barred by laches and misconceived, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.1.2020 Pkb/
(Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.) (Abhinava Upadhya, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is barred by laches given the delay in approaching the court from 2011.
Rajendra And 3 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Abhinava Upadhya
Ravi Nath Tilhari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
