Dismissed¶24

The Management v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC24 Jul 2026REV.APLC(MD)/162/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review application under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC against refusal to condone 2088 days' delay in representing writ appeal (W.A.(MD).SR.34789 of 2012; C.M.P(MD).No.6948 of 2018 dismissed 16.09.2020). Court: condonation of delay is discretionary; such an order is not an error apparent on the face of the record; review dismissed, no costs. Parties: Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (petitioner) v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai and K.Shanmugavel Gandhi.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay being discretionary, any order relating to the same cannot be stated to be a result of an error apparent on the face of the record; hence the refusal to condone delay is not amenable to review on that ground. ¶23

The Management Vs the Presiding Officer — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

REV.APLC(MD) No. 162 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 24-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL REV.APLC(MD) No. 162 of 2022 in C.M.P.(MD).No.6948 of 2018

¶8

The Management Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Division -I Ltd., Bye-Pass Road, Madurai - 625 010.

¶9

..Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai.

¶12

K.Shanmugavel Gandhi

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC against the order passed in C.M.P(MD).No.6948 of 2018 in W.A. (MD).SR.34789 of 2012 dated 16.09.2020.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah

¶16

__________ Page1 of 4

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

REV.APLC(MD) No. 162 of 2022

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

¶21

The Review Application has been filed questioning dismissal of C.M.P.(MD)No.6948 of 2018, which had been filed to condone the delay of 2088 days in representing the Writ Appeal.

¶22

2.The Coordinate Division Bench was of the opinion that the Writ Appeal

¶23

itself had come to be filed with the considerable delay and in representation, there was a further delay of 2088 days, nearly 6 years and odd. The Writ Appellate Court was not inclined to condone the delay. Condonation of delay being discretionary, any order relating to the same cannot stated to be a result of error apparent on the face of record. Two interpretations are possible. Only an appeal could be filed.

¶24

3.The Review Application stands dismissed. No costs.

¶25

(C.V.K.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 24-07-2026

¶26

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶27

cmr

¶28

__________ Page2 of 4

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis