In an application to condone a 278-day delay in filing an appeal, the High Court dismissed the application as the appellant failed to show sufficient cause and the compensation awarded below was found to be in accordance with the law.
Application for condonation of delay dismissed; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CM No.24962-CII-2008 and FAO No.4880 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: 23.04.2010
Babli Devi and others
. . . . Appellants
VS.
Sanjeev Kumar and others
. . . . Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: - Mr.Robin Dutt, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.3
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL)
This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 278 days in filing of the appeal. Notice in the application was issued but no reply has been filed. In the application, applicant has not mentioned any sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. Moreover, after going through the main case, it is found that the compensation awarded is in accordance with law. Therefore, I do not find any justification to condone the delay of 278 days in filing the appeal. Hence, the present application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
23.4.2010 Vivek
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether delay of 278 days in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Babli Devi and others
Sanjeev Kumar and others
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
