Allowed

Corporate Manager,Chaldean Syrian Church v. Pincy Paul

Kerala HC20 Oct 2009WA/516/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court condoned 598 days delay for filing writ appeal in service matter, ordering appellant to pay costs to respondent's counsel within two weeks, allowing case to proceed on merits despite lack of strong explanation for delay.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing appeal of 598 days was condoned on condition that petitioner pays Rs. 1,500 to respondent's counsel within two weeks.

Corporate Manager,Chaldean Syrian Church Vs Pincy Paul — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931

¶5

WA.No. 516 of 2008() -------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.12216/2005 Dated 03/03/2006 ....................

¶6

APPELLANT(S): 4TH RESPONDENT:

¶7

¶8

THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CHALDEAN SYRIAN CHURCH SCHOOLS, THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

¶11

¶12

PINCY PAUL, MOOKEN HOUSE, MULANKUNNATHKAVU P.O., THRISSUR FORMERLY WORKING AS HSA (MATHS) IN LEAVE VACANCY, CHALDEAN SYRIAN CHURCH SCHOOL, THRISSUR.

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14.

¶15

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR.

¶16

ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL & SRI.N.M.MADHU FOR R1 GP SMT.R.BINDU FO R2 TO R4

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009, ALONG WITH WA NO.2964 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ.

¶19

C.M.APPLN.NO.244 OF 2008

¶20

¶21

W.A.NO.516 OF 2008

¶22

-------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2008.

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Balakrishnan Nair, J:

¶25

The petitioner prays for condonation of delay of 598 days in filing the appeal. It is pointed out that, against the judgment under appeal, a review application was attempted. The review application was dismissed and thereafter, this appeal was filed. In the meantime, there was a change in the management also and, therefore, the appeal cannot be filed in time. The 1^st respondent vehemently opposes the application. According to him, there is no justification for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The delay has not been properly explained also. There was delay in filing the R.P and even after the judgment in the R.P was rendered, there is further delay in filing the appeal also. So, the delay petition may be dismissed.

¶26

Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC

¶27

C.M.APPL.NO244/08

¶28

¶29

concerning condonation of delay, we feel that the petitioner should be allowed to contest his case on merit. Accordingly, the delay is condoned on condition that the petitioner pays Rs.1,500/= to the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent within two weeks from today.

¶30

K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE

¶31

P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.

¶32

Corporate Manager,Chaldean Syrian Church v. Pincy Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Corporate Manager,Chaldean Syrian Church v. Pincy Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.T.Rajan Vs Cochin University of Science and Technol

State of Kerala Vs B.Indira

R.Sreelatha Vs Aravindakshan.G.

Anitha Kumari Vs the State of Kerala

Valsala & Anr. Vs State of Kerala & Ors.

Denny Mathew Vs Pincy Paul