IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA A' ' BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, _
BEFORE
TI"-IE HONBLE MR.JUS'I'ICE _If2A,.M 'MGR/AXN
M1sC.w. NOS.8054/20 I O AIIDI "V&3O'.*:3.E"5_:/'?IO . . if
,II\I .
WRIT PETITION NOE3231 /2005'
BETWEEN:
SANJAY DESAI
S/O LATE MADHUSUDHAN DI«':'sA:I,
AGED ABOUT 53aYEA.RS';"*--.:" ._
PROPRlETOR'O:7'.._F_2'\IRFILMS} 'I
AHUJA CHAIN/i_Bl3,RS,V J 'V _.-- ,
RACE COURSI:---,ROAI),, BAjNOA_ V:AOR}?3 ...PETITIONER
* I ~ A (COMMON)
(BY SR1.'P;'D._ES:Ij}'RPIN;fI----)1.{j'\f.] A
ANDI. ._ . ', .
1.
I<.M.PIiAI3_IIusW_A_MY
S/Q, LATE I:5I2;vCHENNABAsAVAIAI~I,
Mi<€\J0F='. …..
‘RESi»DING_AT NO3714/64,
I 1 -I>RA.5IID–DVI«;v__ NILAYA,
” BLQCK, 12″”: MAIN ROAD.
. DAVAi’JAC_%E3RE.
‘ _ 2. A::asIsfIAIJ”I’ LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY FOR
= A {PAYMENT OF GRATUITY,
” , I31%:;.LARy DIVISION. DAVANAGERE
3;’: DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER.
& APPELLATE AUTHORITY UN D ER
THE: PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT,
GULBARGA DIVISION, GULBARGA.
. . .R}E:’SP_’O–N_ E}E’NTS
..~iCQ;vI;_IyI03§II..
{BY sRI.M.C.NARAsIMIIAN ~ ADV. FOR R1
SMJAGADESH MUNDARGI ~_A.GA_FOR R2″ -&;R3”}.
MISC.W.NO.8054/2010 IS. F’II;EZ’f) ‘U/’S_:”S
PRAYING TO CONDONE THE.Df3.LA&”..O’F’.. 206 JI’)iAYs IN I?II;I:\Ic;~ _
THE) APPLICATION TO sET”A§IDE-I.’IfIIE_ oRD}sP….z3AI’EI>V
30. E02009.
MIsC.w.No.805E3,/.2010I””‘Is._’FILEI) UNIDFJR ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CoIV’1s”II’I’I’U*fI*ICg;~e. «IN’D_1A R/W ORDER 9
RULE; 9 01? CPC PRAYINC; ‘};’c)C—IaIa3’CA.I;0’I;.’fI.*.I+II’«:;_ ORDER DATED
30.10.2009. I I ‘
I\«IIsC.\?$J*s’.”«;:§i>MI§-I0 aoré Fofz ‘ICRDICCRS THIS DAY, THE
COURT Ix/IAI3:s»’IfIII§’,, _13″O’L.LQWI_NG: H »
_-0AI3_,¢RDER ….
‘I:’hC’f’I_rs’i to condone the delay of 206
days in fil1’LI’1g ti1C ;–;eCQ1ICE” application. to recall the defauit
“”” “disn1_iss1’ng the writ petition for
_I101’)5pI7C’S@C»1i”[iOij..
Htéalihfix the learned C01.1nse} for the applicant and
‘A ’44’:<.r)EI"i,I§€(isth€ appiI'Cati0I'1s.
TL"
Although the explanation offered in the app-1–i_catien
a.ccompanying the affidavit can hardly be S4%1;iC}«44_fi.Qh”-.bC
satisfactory, more appropriately, the learrieclx c:m.:.1i’eeii» fcry’
the a Iicant did not receive the ‘cé1u«se I.ist.v«isi’I*;0iV $rt)u1’1.d
for recalling the default” order. N.eVe.2jti1e1e§s3,”i:1″ or;:1’e~; to,
do complete justice, the app’Ia1′:5ati0ne Delay’
condoned. The deihiilt 10.2009 is
recalled. The writ pe1:.it.ioi.1Vis”V1″eis:t0redvt§3.