Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/106/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 106 of 2011
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (STAMP) No. 2356 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7498 of 2009
with
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL (STAMP) No. 2356 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7498 of 2009
=========================================================
PASCHIM
GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD (O & M) & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
SIDHEE CEMENT LTD - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
LILU K BHAYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MRS KALPANA K RAVAL for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 22/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
Heard
respective counsel for the parties.
This
is an application for condonation of delay of 296 days in preferring
the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order passed by the learned
Single Judge dated 4th December 2009.
In
the application for condonation of delay, the applicants have
explained the cause for delay, stating that after the order was
passed by learned Single Judge on 4th December 2009, the
learned advocate appearing for the applicants communicated the same
to the Company on 7th December 2009 with an opinion that
appeal be preferred. It is further explained that some time was
consumed by the Company in processing for obtaining sanction to file
Letters Patent Appeal.
Learned
counsel for the respondent has opposed this Application stating that
no sufficient cause has been assigned for condonation of delay.
Having
gone through the contents of the Application and the sufficient cause
assigned, we feel that delay deserves to be condoned and the same is
hereby condoned. Civil Application No.106/2011 stands allowed and the
same is disposed of accordingly.
Mrs.Kalpana
Raval, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – writ
petitioner sought for and allowed a week’s time to obtain instruction
whether the writ petitioner intends to deposit security amount for
confirmation of the interim relief.
Post
the matter on 4th March 2011 within ten cases.
(S.J.Mukhopadhaya,
CJ.)
(J.B.Pardiwala,
J.)
/moin
Top