SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 150

S.P.BHARUCHA, S.S.M.QUADRI, M.B.SHAH
Jai Pal Smgh – Appellant
Versus
Chief Settlement Commissioner – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The notice on the special leave petition stated that the matter might be disposed of at this stage by an order restoring the appeal to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of on merits, condoning the delay in filing it.

3. The delay was of about 170 days. The explanation relates to the illness of the mother of the appellants and the expenses incurred thereon. The High Court took the view that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained. It added that even on merits it did not find any ground to interfere. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that all the grounds in the special leave petition were directed to the merits and there was no averment in regard to the refusal to condone the delay.

4. We do not think that, in the circumstances, that can be a reason to decline to pass the order that seems to us appropriate. We think that the appropriate course that the High Court should have passed and which we propose to do, was to condone the delay and make an order of costs in favour of the respondents.

5. Accordingly, the civil appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. Delay in filing the appeal before the High Court is condon



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top