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

2006 Supreme(Del) 1097

MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, RIMA KOHLI
FINOLUX AUTO PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
FINOLEX CABLES LTD. – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:Mr. Sudhanshu Batra. Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Manmohan. Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.-Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 9th August. 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in IA No. 6510/2003 in CS (OS) No. 2347/2000, rejecting the application of the appellant herein filed under Order 9 Rule 7, CPC, the present appeal is preferred in this Court. The appeal is barred by limitation and there is delay of about 224 days in filing the present appeal. Consequently, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is also filed by the appellant praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Along with the said application filed under Section 5, an affidavit of the previous Counsel who represented the appellant is also annexed. The aforesaid application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is strongly opposed by the respondent who had filed reply thereto refuting the statements made in the application.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the aforesaid application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The impugned order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 9th August, 2004. It is stated that the certified copy was applied for immediately by the appellant and the said cer










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