The High Court dismissed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a single judge order upholding a labour court award, finding the appellant's explanation insufficient and attributing the gap to negligence.
Application for condonation of delay is dismissed; consequently, the preferred appeal is also 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.
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ASHOKA HOTEL ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Ravi Sikri, Sr.Adv. with Ms. Shantala Sankrit, Mr.Deepank Yadav and Ms.Divyangana Singh, Advs.
Versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sajnoy Ghose, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
O R D E R % 05.12.2016
CM No. 29609/2016 (delay in filing the appeal)
LPA 457/2016
Page 1 of 5
service.
“3. That it is the most respectful submission of the appellant – Ashok Hotel that it was not aware of the passing of the Impugned Order, and had not been informed about the same. It was on account of the said fact that the Appellant – Ashok Hotel could not promptly initiate appropriate action for challenging the Impugned Order dated 12.08.2015.
It is most respectfully submitted that immediately thereafter, the Appellant – Ashok Hotel contacted the Counsel who had appeared on its behalf in the Writ Petition No.2800 of 2004, and discussed the consequences of the Impugned Order, as also the viability of a challenge to the same.
LPA 457/2016
Page 2 of 5
However, despite taking considerable time to prepare the Appeal, the said Counsel could not prepare the same on account of certain personal reasons.
The Instant Appeal was examined at various levels within the Appellant – Ashok Hotel and after a few minor changes, the same was finalized and approved for filing.
LPA 457/2016
Page 3 of 5
filing of the Instant Appeal, which is neither deliberate nor intentional. The delay can merely be attributed to the fact that the Appellant did not have timely knowledge of the passing of the Impugned Order as also the fact that earlier Counsel for the Appellant – Ashok Hotel could not prepare the Instant Appeal owing to certain personal difficulties. The delay is also attributable to the considerable time spent in tracing certain old documents, seeking information from various Departments and officers functioning within the Appellant – Ashok Hotel, and the long drawn process of decision making in the Appellant Organization.
LPA 457/2016
Page 4 of 5
LPA 457/2016
In view of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal also stands dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
DECEMBER 05, 2016 neelam/‘anb’
LPA 457/2016
Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay of 264 days in filing the appeal.
Whether the explanation of lack of knowledge regarding the impugned order is satisfactory.
Ashoka Hotel
Govt of NCT of Delhi
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
