Allowed

Gopal Bouri v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Jharkhand HC23 Jan 2023C.M.P./383/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order condones an 819-day delay in restoring a dismissed Letters Patent Appeal, subjecting the petitioner to a cost penalty. The court restored the appeal to its original file and disposed of the custody matter.

What did the court decide?

Restored Letters Patent Appeal No. 646/2015 to its original file. Imposed cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

Gopal Bouri Vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director — Jharkhand HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P No. 383 of 2021

¶2

CORAM: Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

¶3

For the Petitioner: Mr. Binod Kr. Jha, Advocate For the Opp. Party: Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta & Mr. Atul Rai, Advocates

¶4

¶5

03 / 23.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

Petitioner has prayed for restoration of Letters Patent Appeal No. 646/2015 which was dismissed for non-removal of surviving defects within the stipulated time, as per the peremptory order dated 22.11.2017. Restoration petition suffers from delay of 819 days, for condonation of which, I.A. No. 2704/2022.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was seeking compassionate appointment. However, his prayer was rejected by the learned Writ Court in W.P (S) No. 4752/2013. Thereafter, appeal was preferred by a different counsel. However, it appears that since the case remain unrepresented, surviving defects could not be removed within the peremptory time, neither was the petitioner / appellant informed about the same till he visited the office of the concerned Advocate in the month of September 2021. Therefore, delay of 819 days have occasioned which may be condoned, otherwise petitioner would suffer irreparably.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party BCCL has opposed the prayer.

¶9

On consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and explanation furnished, we are inclined to condone the delay, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- in JHALSA within a period of two weeks and file receipt in the Registry. I.A. stands disposed of.

¶10

Having regard to the main grievance of the petitioner that the Letters Patent Appeal No. 646/2015 was dismissed due to non-compliance of peremptory order which the petitioner / appellant was not informed, let L.P.A. No. 646/2015 be restored to its original file. C.M.P. stands disposed of.

¶11

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, A.C.J) (Deepak Roshan, J)

¶12

Ranjeet/

Gopal Bouri v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Bouri v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mubarak Ali Vs Saba Khatoon

Sanjay Kumar Vs Poonam Priya

Sanjay Kumar Vs Poonam Priya

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited through the Territory Manager Sanjeev Gupta Vs Ms B K B Transport Private Ltd.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited through the Territory Manager Sanjeev Gupta Vs Ambey Mining Private Ltd.

Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand