Gujarat High Court High Court

Gujarat vs Aminaben on 14 May, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Gujarat vs Aminaben on 14 May, 2010
Author: K.M.Thaker,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/4202/2010	 1/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4202 of 2010
 

In


 

FIRST
APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 3039 of 2009
 

 
=====================================
 

GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

AMINABEN
WD/O IBRAHIMBHAI HAJIBHAI SINDHI & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

===================================== 
Appearance
: 
MR RAJESH CHAUHAN for MR HS
MUNSHAW for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s)
: 1 - 3. 
=====================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

Date
: 14/05/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

1.0 Present
application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been taken out
seeking condonation of delay of 157 days caused in filing appeal
against award dated 5th
December 2008 in Workmen Compensation Application [New] No. 168 of
1996 (Old Workmen Compensation Application No. 10 of 1994).

2.0 By
order dated 26th April 2010 the application was admitted
and Rule was issued making returnable on 14th May 2010
i.e. today.

3.0 The
Cause List shows that the respondent nos. 1 to 3 have been served.
The applicant has filed affidavit of service.

4.0 Heard
Mr. Chauhan, learned Advocate for the applicant.

5.0 Having
regard the application and submissions made by the learned counsel
and the averments made in the application, the applicant has tendered
satisfactory explanation regarding the reasons, which caused delay in
filing the appeal. The applicant has also made out the sufficient
cause in support of the request to condone the delay of 157 days
caused in filing the appeal. Hence, the relief prayed for in Para
3(b) deserves to be granted. Therefore, delay of 157 days caused in
filing the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed. Rule is
made absolute in terms of Para 3(b). No order as to costs.

6.0 Since
present order has been passed in absence of the opponents who have
not entered appearance though served, it would be open to the
opponents to move appropriate application for modifying or vacating
the order, if the opponents feel aggrieved by the order. However,
such application ought to be filed within a reasonable time.

[
K. M. Thaker, J. ]

hiren

   

Top