Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Gujarat vs Unknown on 3 August, 2010
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

MCA/1332/2010	 2/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR RESTORATION No. 1332 of 2010
 

In


 

FIRST
APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 4392 of 2009
 

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


 

GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & 1 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

MADHIYABHAI
VIRABHAI PARMAR - Opponent(s)
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MS
KIRAN D PANDEY for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. 
None for Opponent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

Date
: 03/08/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. The
present application is filed seeking restoration of First
Appeal
(Stamp Number) 4392 of 2009 which stood dismissed as the office
objections were not removed before the time prescribed by an order
dated 24th
February 2010 of this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K.Rathod).

2. By
an order dated 24th
February 2010, the Court granted time to remove the office objections
on or before 22.03.2010. The office objections were not removed. The
Court fee was not paid and therefore, the matter stood dismissed for
non-removal of office objections. To see that the non-granting of
this application does not sound harsh, the following facts are set
out.

3. The
First Appeal was filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation as back as on 27th
July 2009. As if the S.T. Corporation did not know that the
Corporation is required to file First Appeal by paying Court fees,
the first Appeal was filed only with one rupee stamp on memo of
appeal, five rupees on Vakalatnama and twelve rupees stamp on the
copies, total rupees eighteen. The matter was listed before the
Additional Registrar (Judicial) on 21.01.2010, who granted time to
remove office objections up to 22nd
February 2010. The S.T. Corporation and its Advocate remained
inactive and they did not take care to remove the office objections
within the time prescribed. The matter was thereafter required to be
notified before the Court and the Court, as set out herein above,
passed an order on 24th
February 2010 granting one
month’s time
to remove the office objections. Even, during that period, the office
objections are not removed, the court-fees is not paid and therefore
this Court is of a firm opinion that this appeal is not required to
be restored, so that S.T. Corporation understands that when they
approach the Court, they must approach the Court by paying the
court-fees and if not paid at the time of filing of the appeal, at
least it should be paid during the time granted for the same. In all,
the S.T. Corporation had time right from 27th
July 2009 to pay the court-fees which was not
paid despite two conditional orders on 21.01.2010 and 24.02.2010.
This Court finds no reason to restore the First Appeal. The
application is dismissed.

4. A
belief prevails that the Court must be lenient in the matter of
Public Corporation as they function with the salaried employees who
are not expected to be as diligent as a private party. It is high
time when this belief should be given a go by.

(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)

jani

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

102 queries in 0.132 seconds.