Dismissed

The Divisional Manager, v. Vinayak Kure

Bombay HC29 Nov 2011CAL/442/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of a civil application for condonation of delay in filing a Letters Patent Appeal against an order regarding service benefits. Finding that interference was inexpedient based on settled facts of employment, the court held no useful purpose would be served by condoning the delay.

What did the court decide?

The civil application and the appeal are disposed of without condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

The Divisional Manager, Vs Vinayak Kure — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

pvr ca442

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.442 OF 2011 IN

¶4

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL(ST)NO.30819 OF 2011
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3208 OF 2011

¶5

AND

¶6

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL(ST)NO.30819 OF 2011 IN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.3208 OF 2011

¶8

The Divisional Forest Manager
Forest Development Corporation
of Maharashtra Ltd....Appellant
vs.
Shri.Vinayak Kurne....Respondent

¶9

Mr.Nitin P.Deshpande, for Appellant.

¶10

CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH &
ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.

¶11

DATED: 29th November,2011.

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

1.This Civil application is for condonation

¶14

of delay in filing Letters Patent Appeal. In
order to find out whether the appellant has prima

¶15

facie case, we have heard the learned Counsel

¶16

pvr ca442

¶17

appearing for appellant on merit. We find that
admittedly the respondent was working since 1991
as Office Attendant at least till 2002. The
Courts below have appreciated the evidence on
record and have recorded a finding of fact that
the respondent had worked for more than 240 days
in a year. Considering that the orders passed by

¶18

the Courts below are based on the finding of fact
and considering that the respondent had actually
worked for so many years with the appellant and
he is only office attendant, in our opinion,
there is no case to interfere with the order of
the learned Single Judge. In this view of the
matter, therefore, no useful purpose will be
served by condoning delay. The civil application
and the appeal are disposed of.

¶19

(D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)

¶20

 (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.)

The Divisional Manager, v. Vinayak Kure

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager, v. Vinayak Kure

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharadchandra Ganesh Mulay Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Ladakbhai Janyabhai Mishal Vs Shri. Kamlakar Govindbhai Kharpadia and Ors.

The General Manager, Forest Development Corporation, Nashik and Ors. Vs Shri. H. S. Pawar and Ors.

Mr. Dashrath Ramchandra Satav and Anr. Vs the Nav Madhuban Co-Op Soc. Ltd.

Smt. Bhavana Praful Kamdar Alias Smt. Bhavana Jayesh Joshi Vs Sarla P. Sata

Smt. Bhavana Praful Kamdar Alias Smt. Bhavana Jayesh Joshi Vs Sarla P. Sata