Court condoned 216 days of delay in filing an appeal as sufficient cause was shown, disposed of the application, registered the appeal, and noted the need to reflect the representative's name in the registry.
Delay of 216 days condoned; application disposed of; appeal registered; registry instructed to reflect counsel's name.
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.
Cr. MP(M) No.289 of 2017.
04.12.2017 Present : Mr. J. S. Guleria, Asstt. A.G. for the petitioner
Mr. Manoj Bagga, Advocate proxy counsel for the respondent
Cr. MP(M) No.289 of 2017.
By medium of this application, the applicant/ appellant has sought condonation of 216 days delay which has crept up in filing of the appeal. A perusal of the application, more particularly, the contents of paras 2 and 3 of the application, would indicate sufficient cause which prevented the applicant/appellant from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Even though, the application is duly supported by the affidavit of the applicant/appellant. Accordingly, the aforesaid delay is
condoned. The application stands disposed of.
Cr. Appeal No. of 2017
Appeal be registered.
It appears that the Registry has not reflected the name of Ms. Ambika Kotwal, who is representing the respondents. Let the needful be done henceforth.
List on 05.12.2017.
4th December, 2017 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan), (rana) Judge.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether sufficient cause was shown for condoning the 216-day delay in filing the appeal.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
