Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/2890/2008 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 2890 of 2008
In
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION (STAMP NUMBER) No. 2753 of 2007
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1535 of 2006
In
Special
Civil Application No.1268 of 2003
=========================================================
LIMJIBHAI
MANJIBHAI - Applicant(s)
Versus
SURYA
NARAIN SILK MILLS - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRS
SANGEETA N PAHWA for
applicant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 08/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)
1. The
applicant/original appellant-petitioner has filed this Civil
Application for condonation of delay of 70 days in preferring Misc.
Civil Application for review/recall of the order dated 20.6.2007
passed by this Court in LPA No.1535 of 2006 in Special Civil
Application No. 1268 of 2003.
2. Mrs.
Sangeeta N. Pahwa, learned advocate appearing for the applicant, has
submitted that while disposing of LPA No.1535 of 2006 this Court has
not only dismissed the said appeal on the ground of maintainability
but also made observations on merits to the effect that since the
learned Industrial Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have taken
concurrent view and this is the fourth stage of proceedings, we do
not want to entertain the appeal. She has, therefore, submitted that
this would amount to dismissal of the appeal on merits as when this
Court is not entertaining the appeal on the ground that the learned
Single Judge has decided the petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, these observations are not required and it
would come in her way.
3. Since
there was delay in preferring the Misc. Civil Application for
review/recall of the order, the Civil Application for condonation of
delay is moved.
4. We
have considered the application and also perused the order passed by
us in the LPA. We are, however, of the view that the Court has
dismissed the LPA firstly on the ground that the petition is filed
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the learned Single
Judge has also passed the order in a petition treating the same as
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and hence LPA is
not maintainable. This Court has further observed in the order that
there was concurrent finding given by the learned Industrial Tribunal
as well as the learned Single Judge. This additional ground was given
by the Court in support of the order of dismissal of LPA. In any
case, this would not amount to any observation on merits of the case.
However, the fact was stated in the order. Hence, there is no mistake
in the order passed by us for review/recall of the order dated
20.6.2007 passed by this Court in LPA No.1535 of 2006.
5. Since
we are not entertaining the MCA, there is no question of condonation
of delay. Accordingly, Civil Application No.2890 of 2008 for
condonation of delay is rejected and the registration of Misc. Civil
Application (Stamp) No. 2753 of 2007 for review/recall of the order
dated 20.6.2007 passed in LPA No.1535 of 2006 is refused.
(A.M.
Kapadia, J.)
(K.A.
Puj, J.)
…
(karan)
Top