This court dismissed a review application filed by the applicant seeking to condone a six-year delay in filing a miscellaneous application challenging an award. The earlier writ petition was dismissed on the ground of laccsand functus officio.
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.
1 ra st 17673.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW APPLICATION STAMP NO. 17673 OF 2012 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2011
Bharat Engineering Works,
D-5, MIDC Nagapur, Ahmednagar .. Applicant
Versus Vaijanta Balasaheb Warangale .. Respondent
Shri P. S. Pawar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. M. D. Thube-Mhase, Advocate h/f Shri P. V. Barde, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 04TH DECEMBER, 2012.
PER COURT :
. Shri Pawar, the learned counsel submits that, this Court has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that after one month of the publication of the award, the Court becomes functus officio and there is no provision for condoning the delay. According to the learned counsel the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable. The learned counsel submits that
even the documents were annexed with the application which shows the sufficient cause in not filing the Miscellaneous ULP
2 ra st 17673.12
No. 19/2008 earlier. The delay ought to have been condoned.
[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/Dec. 12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court should allow or dismiss a review application filed with delay to set aside an impugned order dismissing a writ petition.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bharat Engineering Works
Vaijanta Balasaheb Warangale
S. V. Gangapurwala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
