Dismissed

Air India Ltd. v. Capt.Lakshmi Krishna Kumar

Madras HC16 Jun 2020WMP/8947/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition was filed by Air India Limited seeking a three-month extension to comply with directions in a writ petition. The court rejected the prayer, noting that the Supreme Court was functioning via video conferencing during the lockdown. The application for time extension was accordingly dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for extension of time to comply with directions pursuant to a previous judgment was rejected/dismissed.

Air India Ltd. Vs Capt.Lakshmi Krishna Kumar — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.M.P.No.8947 of 2020 in W.P.No.25513 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.06.2020

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.A.P.SAHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶8

W.M.P.No.8947 of 2020 in W.P.No.25513 of 2016

¶9

1.Air India Limited,

¶10

rep. Chairman and Managing Director, Airlines House,

¶11

Guruwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi-110 001.

¶12

2.Central Training Establishment, Air India Limited,

¶13

rep. by its Director of Training, (CTE) Ferozguda, Hyderabad-500 011.

¶14

3.Air India Limited, General Manager, Operations Department, Meenambakkam, Chennai – 600 027. .. Petitioners/ Respondents 2 to 4

¶15

-vs-

¶16

___________ Page 1 of 6_

¶17

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

W.M.P.No.8947 of 2020 in W.P.No.25513 of 2016

¶19

1.Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar, rep. by her Power of Attorney, Cap. M.S.Krishnakumar, 'Lakshmi Krishna', 32, Perialwar Street, Sundaram Colony, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. .. 1^st Respondent/ Petitioner/ Party-in-person

¶20

2.Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi – 110 003. .. 2^nd Respondent/ 1^st Respondent

¶21

Petition filed praying to pass an order extending the time of two months mentioned in para 10 of the judgment dated 10.03.2020 for complying with the directions in W.P.No.25513 of 2016 (W.A.No.446 of 2016 etc.) by another three more months.

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.J.Madanagopal Rao Standing Counsel for 2^nd respondent : No appearance for 1^st respondent

¶24

___________ Page 2 of 6_

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

W.M.P.No.8947 of 2020 in W.P.No.25513 of 2016

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶29

We have heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the Union of India.

¶30

Learned counsel for the applicants has prayed for extension of

¶31

time and while making such a prayer, paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the application reads as under:

¶32

“7.We have a good case for Appeal. But due to Nationwide lockdown we cold not prepare and file SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Despite being well aware of the fact, the Respondent/Appellant & her husband are sending repeated emails directing us to comply with the order by refunding the training cost which she paid. Not only that, the 1^st Respondent/Writ Petitioner is also claiming certain other amounts.”

¶33

Learned counsel for the applicants contends that it was on

¶34

account of the lockdown period that there was some communication problem and the transmission of papers as well as filing of SLP is likely to take some more time.

¶35

Page 3 of 6

¶36

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶37

W.M.P.No.8947 of 2020 in W.P.No.25513 of 2016

¶38

The time sought, therefore, is not for compliance of making the payments, but is rather an application for virtually seeking to file SLP before the Apex Court.

¶39

We do not find this to be a good ground, inasmuch as the Apex Court also had been continuously functioning through Video Conferencing and therefore, grant of extension of time on the grounds

¶40

taken in the application does not appeal to us.

¶41

The application for extending time is accordingly rejected.
(A.P.S., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
16.06.2020
bbr

¶42

___________ Page 4 of 6_

¶43

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶44

W.M.P.No.8947 of 2020 in W.P.No.25513 of 2016

¶45

To:

¶46

1.The Chairman and Managing Director, Air India Limited, Airlines House, Guruwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi-110 001.

¶47

2.The Director of Training, Central Training Establishment, Air India Limited, (CTE) Ferozguda, Hyderabad-500 011.

¶48

3.The General Manager, Air India Limited, Operations Department, Meenambakkam,

¶49

Chennai – 600 027.

¶50

4.The Secretary, Air India Limited, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi – 110 003.

¶51

___________ Page 5 of 6_

¶52

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶53

W.M.P.No.8947 of 2020 in W.P.No.25513 of 2016

¶54

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

¶55

bbr

¶56

W.M.P.No.8947 of 2020
in W.P.No.25513 of 2016
16.06.2020

¶57

___________ Page 6 of 6_

¶58

http://www.judis.nic.in

Air India Ltd. v. Capt.Lakshmi Krishna Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Air India Ltd. v. Capt.Lakshmi Krishna Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager Vs C.Sagayaraj

S.Gowtham Karthick Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

J.Madhavan Vs the Executive Engineer (O and M) North

Dr.K.M.Senthamizhselvan Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

T.Perumal Vs the Chairman

S.Deivasigamani Vs the Government of Tamilnadu Rep. by