Disposed

Steel Authority of India v. Lekhram and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jan 2012WP/1379/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench order condensed a 1995 pending writ petition. The court allowed condonation of delay to substitute deceased respondent's legal representatives. It disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 53,931.11 to the widow based on a joint settlement agreement.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay allowed; Substitution of legal representatives allowed; Petition disposed by directing petitioner to pay Rs. 53,931.11 to widow within three months.

Steel Authority of India Vs Lekhram and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

B«-
IN 'fflE HISM GOm.T OF HADHY'A.FRABESH A3*
W&IT PEII'nOM B©4i7^
5 :. (^(t.os^N
PETITIONER : STEEL,ABTH©RITT,GE> INBIA LTD.
BaiLArS'rSEL PLfi?T, ^BHiai^ ..
'Birot.igft,; ; HaiiagiBg'Ba.i'ee^fcer,.,
Btixlal S'beeI^Elairt:.
•VERSEB
jj^ v
RESP0HDEHTS: *71^ Lekhraffl .S/o •Shr.i. &aj['uha. Bam
R/S.Vili M@ridy/'^(fc -ItaEuiera^
^iatt. Borg •(M..P.!)1 • -.•':;-:'
-—------••'~~'~~~^'^t.
•^, 2, Labour Gour-fc, Burg •(H. P. >• .^',,^g||
•V^e/.t^t
3. Indxistrial GouFt;^BeBeli BMipur^: ^|i^.|
/;.KrisbBa Sadan, 16-SIS' .^ •-y. W's
^ai^ar Hagar, Raipor (M.P.)' |i:l:u7y
WJS.sPE3SZl SSSS.!,.^B3'3Xi,E&..2&6/2m
^
aia!:'t!J:i;i^
's®.a®'»?®gni»gBB sa;aB«BasiaBis^
S@,l:'ffl®^..";il;e!::'ya'::::ff''lp:-r?'^-.'?'':-:1.^^ : M IB

¶2

Sl.No. Name Date of Birth Relation 1. Smt. Leela Bai Wife 2. Ku. Hemlata Bai 23-02-1984 Daughter 3. Ku. Tameshwari Bai 14-09-1985 Daughter 4. DineshKumar 26-12-1987 Son :5. Ku. Nema Bai 05-10-1989 Daughter 6. Ku. Lileshwari Bai 05-11-1993 Daughter

¶3

Husband-Late Shri Lekhram ViIIage - Morid, P.0.- Dundera

rt ^v:

Distt. Durg (C.G.)

"^^1 ^f! !AINEX®E-E

&SBESgSE S &1-P-3T-——

^il.i^iUii

,.t«Ea"

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

¶12

S1NG1.EBENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR1 ^J,

¶13

W.P. No. 1379 of 1995

¶14

PETITIONER Steel Authority of India Ltd.

¶15

Versus

¶16

RESPONDENTS Lekhram and others.

¶17

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTiTUTiON OF iNDIA.

¶18

Shri Goutam Bhaduri, counsel for petitioner. None for respondent No.1.

¶19

ORAL ORDE

¶20

(05/01/20125

¶21

Heard on I.A. No.4 for condonation of delay in filing the application for substitution oflegal representatives of deceased respondent No. 1 Lekhram.

¶22

On due consideration, prayer for condonation of delay is ailowed and consequently, after due consideration, applioation for sutetitution of legal representatives of deceased is also allowed. Let the cause titie be amended during the couree of the day.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner wou'd submit that a joint appljcation for out of Court settlement has befen moved under the signatures of the petitioner and widow of deeeased respondent No.1 and the present petition may be disposed of in terms of the joint settlement arrived between the parties.

¶24

Contents of I.A. No. 1*is perused. In para 9 of the appilcation. it has been mentioned that the petitioner and the widow haveagreed to settie the dispute wherein the oetitioner would pav difference ofwages between the last drawn of wages and the aotual waaes, amounting to Rs.53,931.11 (Rfty three thousand nine hundred and thirty one rupees and eleven paise only) shall be paid to widwv for and on behalf of all the dependents of late Lekhram. The application beare the thumb JmDression-as well as affidavit of Smt. Leela Sahu, widow of late Lekhram.

¶25

This writ petition is pending since ;1995 and no one is reoresenting the oase on behalf of Lekhram or his legai heirs, therefore in the obtaining facts and oircumsiances of the case this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition with a direction in temns of the joint settlement directing the petitioner to pav Rs. 53,931.11 {Fiftv three ihousand nine hundred and thirty one rupees and e feven paise only) to the widow of deceased Lekhram within a period of three months from today.

¶26

Since this order is passed in the absence of the leaal representatives of deoeased Lekhram it is made clear and option is open for the widow or for the other leaal reoresentatives of the deceased Lekhram to move an application for modifioation if their grievance still subsists.

¶27

A copy of this order be sent to the widow and other legal rewesentatives of thedeceased. ————^,7 ——~ Prashant Kumar Mishra ' Judge

¶28

¶29

ISS ai?iiyf
'^ '::.1:
- .i" • .'• : • •' 1 i;"''it

Steel Authority of India v. Lekhram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Steel Authority of India v. Lekhram and Ors.

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

Smt.Vibha Sahay Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

S.K.Mahale Vs Union of India and Ors.

C.G. Rajya Karamchari Sangh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Rp.Singh Vs P.C.I. New Delhi and Ors.

Chinta Ram Lahare Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Raghuvar Prasad Choudhary Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.