Union of India v. Paresh Nath Sharma & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 27 Feb 2023 · 2023:DHC:1575-DB

Najmi Waziri; Sudhir Kumar Jain

LPA 609/2019

2023:DHC:1575-DB

civil appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India's appeal and applications for condonation of delay due to insufficient grounds and held that unexplained delays render appeals not maintainable.

Full Text

Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001575

LPA 609/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 27th February, 2023

LPA 609/2019 & CM APPL. 41646/2019 (Stay)
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Vikram Jetly, CGSC with Ms. Shreya Jetly, Advocate.

VERSUS

PARESH NATH SHARMA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanat Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinayak Batta with Mr. P.N.
Sharma, Advocates for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (ORAL)
The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

CM APPL 41650/2018 (Delay in filing)

JUDGMENT

1. This application seeks condonation of delay of 66 days in filing the appeal.

2. The reasons given are as under:-

“3. That it took department to get some days in getting certified copy of the impugned order. Thereafter file was sent for legal opinion. 4. That after the legal opinion was sought a rough draft was prepared, which again was sent for vetting and thereafter a final draft was prepared, all this took some time.”

3. The aforesaid reasons are ex-facie without substance, they are not supported by any dates as to when the certified copy was applied for and when it was received. In any case, the days taken for receiving the certified copies would be excluded from computing limitation.

4. As regards obtaining legal opinion, there is no mention as to when and from whom the legal opinion was sought or when the draft of the appeal was prepared, etc. The grounds for condonation of the delay are bald statements. No basis is made out.

5. The application is without merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 41647/2018 (Delay in re-filing)

6. This application seeks condonation of delay of 330 days in re-filing of the LPA.

7. The reasons given are as under:

“5. That sometime in November 2018, complete set of LPA was lost. 6. That in December 2018 clerk of Counsel of Appellant left the office. 7. That for long time, same did not come to notice of anyone. 8. That in May it was brought to notice that file was missing. 9. As the file is voluminous and the imputations pertains to 1995 it took some considerable time to reconstruct the complete file.”

8. The applicant is the state. It has a large panel of counsel, legal advisors, officers and managers. It is deemed, to have knowledge of the legal process and is expected to act with due alacrity apropos the case filed by it. The LPA was filed on 11.10.2018, after a delay of 66 days. The applicant woke up to it sometime in May, 2019 and cleared the objections sometime in September, 2019. The delay of 330 days is not explained. The grounds averred are sketchy, unsubstantiated and untenable.

9. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

10. Mr. Sanat Kumar, learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that in any case by the said date all monies payable to the respondent had been duly paid by MMTC/the employer.

11. In view of the order passed above, stay granted vide order dated 22.11.2019, stands vacated.

12. The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J FEBRUARY 27, 2023 sk/k

Union of India v. Paresh Nath Sharma & Ors.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation