This court dismissed three applications seeking condonation of delay for filing and re-filing an appeal, rejecting the vague explanations as insufficient cause.
Both applications for condonation of delay and the principal appeal were dismissed.
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.
$~5
versus
SIDDHARTH GUPTA & ANR ..... Respondents Through : None
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
O R D E R % 02.12.2016 CM Nos. 44615/2016 & 44617/2016
These are applications seeking condonation of delay of 135 days in filing the appeal and a further 104 days’ delay in re-filing the appeal. The reasons given in the applications do not inspire any confidence. In fact, they cannot even be considered to be reasons. No details have been given. No dates have been mentioned and it only smacks of bureaucratic red tape.
Consequently, both the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal are dismissed. The appeal is also dismissed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
DECEMBER 02, 2016 SR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the reasons for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing appeal satisfy the requirements for grant of relief.
Whether the explanation offered for delay of 135 days in filing appeal and 104 days in re-filing appeal discloses sufficient cause.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India
Siddharth Gupta & Anr.
Badar Durrez Ahmed
Ashutosh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal to a Division Bench against an order made by a single judge on the original side of the High Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
