Dismissed¶23

M S Kuwait Airways v. Om Pal Singh

Delhi HC4 Apr 2025W.P.(C)/3831/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court writ petition withdrawn; M S Kuwait Airways v. Om Pal Singh; Payment of Gratuity Act 1972; Appellate Authority order; Controlling Authority order unchallenged; liberty to file fresh petition; dismissed as withdrawn; pending applications closed; exemption from typed copies allowed; Trial Court Record to be placed on record; Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju; order dated 04.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to withdraw the Petition and file an appropriate Petition challenging the order of the learned Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as well; Petition dismissed as withdrawn and all pending Applications closed. ¶23

M S Kuwait Airways Vs Om Pal Singh — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the present Petition, whose challenge was confined to the Appellate Authority's order under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, so as to file a fresh petition also challenging the Controlling Authority's order.

¶22

Court's answer

Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to withdraw the present Petition and file an appropriate Petition challenging the order of the learned Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as well, albeit in accordance with law.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

CM Appl.17842/2025 (exemption from filing typed copies) is allowed, subject to the Petitioner filing typed copies of the annexures within a period of three weeks.

¶13

Key takeaways

The Registry is directed to place on record the digital copy of the Trial Court Record duly paginated and book-marked in accordance with the rules of the High Court.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.), W.P.(C) 3831/2025, M S Kuwait Airways v. Om Pal Singh, order dated 04.04.2025: Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the challenge in the writ petition had been inadvertently confined to the order of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereas the order of the Controlling Authority under the said Act, which had decided the matter against the Petitioner, ought also to have been challenged. The Court granted liberty to withdraw the Petition and file an appropriate Petition challenging the Controlling Authority's order as well, in accordance with law. The Petition was dismissed as withdrawn and all pending Applications were closed. CM Appl.17842/2025 (exemption from filing typed copies) was allowed subject to filing typed copies of the annexures within three weeks; the Registry was directed to place the paginated, book-marked digital Trial Court Record on record. No precedent was cited and no substantive issue was adjudicated.

¶1

$~50

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3831/2025 & CM Appls.17843/2025, 19753/2025

¶4

M S KUWAIT AIRWAYS .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Swati Sinha and Ms. Barnali Mukherjee, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

OM PAL SINGH .....Respondent

¶7

Through:

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 04.04.2025

¶12

CM Appl.17842/2025 [Exemption from filing typed copies]

¶13

Allowed, subject to the Petitioner filing typed copies of the annexures within a period of three weeks.

¶14

The Application stands disposed of.

¶15

CM Appl.17841/2025 [Exemption from filing certified copy of the Impugned Order]

¶16

The Registry is directed to place on record the digital copy of the Trial Court Record duly paginated and book-marked in accordance with the rules of the High Court.

¶17

The Application stands disposed of.

¶18

W.P.(C) 3831/2025 & CM Appls.17843/2025 [Stay]

¶19

After some arguments, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the challenge in the present Petition has been inadvertently confined only to challenge the order of the learned Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, when in fact, the order passed by the learned Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which decided the

¶20

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 18:38:34

¶21

matter against the Petitioner should also have been challenged.

¶22

5.1 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks and is granted liberty to withdraw the present Petition to file an appropriate Petition for challenging the order of the learned Controlling Authority as well. Liberty as sought for is so granted albeit in accordance with law.

¶23

The Petition is accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. All pending Applications also stand closed.

¶24

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

¶25

APRIL 4, 2025/r

¶26

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶27

M S Kuwait Airways v. Om Pal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Kuwait Airways v. Om Pal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Moghe Vs Union of India and Anr.

Indian Bank Vs National Commission for Scheduled Castes & Anr.

Sagar Rajendra Kumar Mangla Vs Union of India & Ors.

Randhir Singh Malik Vs Union of India & Anr.

Smt. Sunita Popli Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Gaurav Meena Vs Central Information Commission

K.G.Somani & Co. Vs UOI & Ors.

Mohd Murtaza Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi Swimming Association Vs Balaji Swimming Club & Ors.

Make My Travel India Pvt.Ltd Vs Labourt Department & Anr.

Smt. Manju & Ors. Vs Mahesh Kumar (Driver) & Anr.

Scindia Potteries and Services Private Limited Vs Scindia Investments Private Limited

Jitender Kumar Gupta Vs Trilok Singh Kapoor & Ors.

Razia Sultana & Ors. Vs Fazal Ur Rehman