Dismissed

The Chairaman v. K.E.Ramakanthan

Madras HC9 Sept 2020CMP/6786/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge Bench held that the appellant's delay of 3247 days in filing a writ appeal was inordinate and unexplained. Citing Esha Bhattacharjee, the Court dismissed the delay condonation petition and consigned the appeal to records due to heavy laches. Desposition: dismissed

What did the court decide?

Delay condonation petition dismissed; appeal consigned to records due to heavy laches.

The Chairaman Vs K.E.Ramakanthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

C.M.P.No.6786 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 22938 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.09.2020

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.A.P.SAHI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶8

C.M.P.No.6786 of 2020
and W.A.No.SR 22938 of 2020
THE CHAIRAMAN
TAMIL NADU SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD,
NO.5, KAMARAJAR SALAI, CHENNAI-600 005. .. Petitioner/
Appellant
-vs-
1 K.E.RAMAKANTHAN
2 J. BHUVANESWRAN
3 P.T.JACOB
4 P.S.MUTHUKRISHNAN
5 J. MOHANAN
6 P.N.SUBRAMANIAM
7 R. PONNAIAH
8 S. SATANATHA VALAL
9 M. RAMADOSS
10 SARASWATHI
11 BENJAMIN GONZAGA
12 M. KUPPUSAMY
13 T. SURIYANARAYAMOORTHY
14 V. ANJANEYALU
15 Y. EDWARD
16 A.G.BALATHANDAYUDAM

¶9

Page 1 of 5

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

C.M.P.No.6786 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 22938 of 2020

¶12

17 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FORT ST GEORGE CHENNAI-600 009.

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

CMP.6786 of 2020 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to
Condone the delay of 3247 days in filing the above Writ Appeal under
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as against the impugned order of the
Learned Judge dated 30.03.2011 made in WP.No.22157 of 2010.
For Petitioner/Appellant : Mrs.D.Latha
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner / appellant.

¶15

2.The appeal had been presented after a considerable delay that

¶16

came to be recorded by us in our order dated 19.08.2020, which is extracted hereinunder:-

¶17

“We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who seeks an adjournment.

¶18

2.There is a huge delay of 3247 days. From the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition, we find no

¶19

Page 2 of 5

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶21

C.M.P.No.6786 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 22938 of 2020

¶22

plausible explanation, much less sufficient cause so as to condone the delay. The explanation afforded, therefore, does not persuade us to accept the reasons given in the affidavit to condone the delay. Reasons have to be explained and cause has to be sufficiently shown, as explained by the Apex Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649. The explanation not forthcoming, we do not find this to

¶23

be a fit case to condone the delay.

¶24

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for one indulgence to assist the Court further.

¶25

List on 9.9.2020. “

¶26

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant has not been able

¶27

to place any material before us either in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise so as to demonstrate that this inordinate delay of 3247 days could be possibly condoned keeping in view the law laid down by this Court as referred to hereinabove.

¶28

We, therefore, in the absence of any such valid explanation

¶29

forthcoming, do not find this to be an appeal worth entertaining on account of heavy laches.

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶32

C.M.P.No.6786 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 22938 of 2020

¶33

The delay condonation petition is, accordingly, dismissed and the

¶34

appeal is consigned to records.

¶35

(A.P.S., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
09.09.2020
Index : Yes/No
sra
To
1.THE CHAIRAMAN
TAMIL NADU SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD,
NO.5, KAMARAJAR SALAI, CHENNAI-600 005.
2.THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
OF TAMIL NADU, HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FORT ST GEORGE CHENNAI-600 009.

¶36

Page 4 of 5

¶37

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶38

C.M.P.No.6786 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 22938 of 2020

¶39

The Hon'ble Chief Justice and Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.

¶40

(sra)

¶41

C.M.P.No.6786 of 2020 and
W.A.No.SR 22938 of 2020
09.09.2020

¶42

Page 5 of 5

¶43

http://www.judis.nic.in

The Chairaman v. K.E.Ramakanthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chairaman v. K.E.Ramakanthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Jagannatha Rao Vs Air India Limited

Govindasamy Balasubramaniam Vs Union of India

The Dist Elementary Educational Officer Vs J.Inmozhi Easumani

S.Raghunathan Vs the Commissioner

The Director General of Police Vs a.Subramanian

Care 4 Life Vs the Secretary to Government