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

2013 Supreme(All) 773

SUDHIR AGARWAL
STATE OF U. P. – Appellant
Versus
DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
S.C. for the Appellants; Anil Sharma for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard learned Standing Counsel for applicants-appellants and Sri Anil sharma, Advocate for respondent.

2. This is a second appeal instituted by State of U.P. through District Magistrate, Bijnor and another and has been filed beyond period of limitation by one year and 322 days, i.e., almost two years. The appeal is accompanied with this application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1963”) seeking condonation of delay. The affidavit accompanying this application gives nothing but a superficial eye wash explanation having several wide gaps in the prospective of period. In brief, the chronological events given in affidavit to explain delay, read as under:

3. In the aforesaid narration, after sending opinion by DGC on 10.3.2011, there is no explanation for a period of about one and half years and more inasmuch as the applicants applied for fresh certified copy of judgment on 1.10.2012 but what happened to earlier certified copy of judgment and what proceedings were taken, the affidavit is totally silent except of stating that earlier certified copy lost somewhere but no inquiry, no investigation and no


















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