Gujarat High Court High Court

Kunjar vs Chatrapati on 29 September, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Kunjar vs Chatrapati on 29 September, 2011
Author: M.R. Shah,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/14149/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14149 of 2011
 

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


 

KUNJAR
MAHESH PANDURANG - Petitioner
 

Versus
 

CHATRAPATI
SHIVAJI - Respondent
 

======================================
Appearance : 
MR
MD CHAUHAN for the Petitioner. 
None for the
Respondent. 
====================================== 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
		
	

 

Date
: 29/09/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. The
present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred by the petitioner to quash and set aside the impugned
order dated 22/07/2011 passed by learned Gujarat State Co-Operative
Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Civil Misc.Application No.64 of 2011, by
which, learned Tribunal has rejected the said application to condone
the delay of 4 years and 3 months in preferring the appeal against
the judgement and award dated 23/01/2006 passed by learned Board of
Nominees, Vadodara in Lavad (Summary) Suit No.868 of 2003.

2. Having
heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and
considering the impugned order and huge delay of 4 years and 3
months, which has not been explained satisfactorily, it cannot be
said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error and/or
illegality in rejecting the aforesaid application for condonation of
delay and in not condoning the delay of 4 years and 3 months in
preferring the appeal against the judgement and award passed by
learned Board of Nominees,Vadodara. No sufficient cause has been
shown by the petitioner for condonation of huge delay. Even Medical
Certificate, which is produced on record, is of the year 2006 and
nothing has been produced for the period from the year 2006 to 2011.
Under the circumstances, no case is made out to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal in refusing to condone
the huge delay of 4 years and 3 months.

3. In
view of the above, there is no substance in the present petition and
the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No
costs.

[M.R.SHAH,J]

*dipti

   

Top