Gujarat High Court High Court

Masser’S vs Employees on 24 November, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Masser’S vs Employees on 24 November, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/9653/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 9653 of 2010
 

In


 

FIRST
APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 3092 of 2008
 

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


 

MASSER'S
AVANI ESTATE & CHEMICALS - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

EMPLOYEES
STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION THROUGH & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
DIPEN C SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR SACHIN D VASAVADA for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 24/11/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

It
is required to be noted that an appeal was already preferred when
the Special Civil Application was disposed of in the year 2008. On
18th January 2010 this Court passed the following order in
SCA No. 11967 of 2006 :

” Mr
Dipen Shah learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to
withdraw this petition with a liberty to prefer an appeal.
Permission as prayed for is granted. The petition stands disposed of
as withdrawn. The interim relief granted vide order dated 28.6.2006
will continue for a period of two weeks from today. It is however,
observed that the petitioner will prefer an appeal within a period
of two weeks from today. ”

Having
heard the learned advocates and perusal of the record it apparent
that there is total negligence on the part of the applicant and no
sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay. Further parallel
proceedings were initiated by the applicant which is nothing but an
abuse of process of law. The Court should not take a lenient view in
favour of a litigant who is taking chance by preferring several
litigations.

Looking
to the overall facts and circumstances of the case am of the view
that no case is made out to condone the delay. Hence, the application
is rejected.

(K.

S.Jhaveri,J.)

mary//

   

Top