Posted On by &filed under High Court, Karnataka High Court.


Karnataka High Court
Sanjay Desai vs K M Prabhuswamy on 30 August, 2010
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
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.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

102 queries in 0.171 seconds.