Full Text
Translation output
/'
• - • ' Is . '
•' ' • - I . • '
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 11471/2016 & C.M. Nos.44964-65/2016 ,, > '
UNION OF ESfDIA & ORS ..... Petitioner ^
Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. R.N. Singh, Advs. ' .
• - • ' Is . '
•' ' • - I . • '
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 11471/2016 & C.M. Nos.44964-65/2016 ,, > '
UNION OF ESfDIA & ORS ..... Petitioner ^
Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. R.N. Singh, Advs. ' .
VERSUS
" ~ _
AMIT , _ > .....Respondent ' ^ Through: Ms. Harvinder Oberbi, Adv.
^ + W.P.(C) 11472/2016 &C.M. No. 44966/2016 " , UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha arid Mr. R^.N. Singh, -
Advs;
. , '
AMIT , _ > .....Respondent ' ^ Through: Ms. Harvinder Oberbi, Adv.
^ + W.P.(C) 11472/2016 &C.M. No. 44966/2016 " , UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha arid Mr. R^.N. Singh, -
Advs;
. , '
VERSUS
, ' . AJIT SINGH & ANR . .....Respondent
> ^ - Through: Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, Adv. , CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHAPALLI
1 • ~ . I ••
4 , % 10.10.2017 We have heard learned counsel for; the parties. One of the
.. submissions advanced by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitionef.is that
^ the original application was barred by limitation and consequently the
: respondent had moved an application to seek condonation of delay. -The petitioner had filed its counter reply specifically stating that the original application was hopelessly barred by_limitation.
The Original Application related to an incident of 2009 whereas the
\ . same had been filed only in the year 2013. Mr. Sinha,,.submits th^.the
2017:DHC:8836-DB 4,^- / 4'.
Tribunal allowed the application seeking condonation of delay in a mechanical manner without application of mind and without giving any reasons. - - '
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the, respondents submits that no specific reply had been filed by the •Petitioners^ to the delay application and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in; allowing, the application for condonation of delay.
In our view, even if no reply was filed it was incumbent upon the
Tribunal to examine the reasons for seeking condonation of delay in the light ofthe delay period involved in the case.
The Tribunal should, therefore, have bestowed its consideration on the said application and giv^easons for allowing the same. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order-and remand the matter back to the Tribunal, for reconsideration on the aspect of condonation of delay. . , The petition as well as the applications stand disposed ofin the above terms. ~ ' /
The parties shall appear before the Tribunal,on 30.10.2017.
^ Vm]^SANGHI,J XI, J OCTOBER 10, 2017 saurabh
2017:DHC:8836-DB
> ^ - Through: Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, Adv. , CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHAPALLI
1 • ~ . I ••
4 , % 10.10.2017 We have heard learned counsel for; the parties. One of the
.. submissions advanced by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitionef.is that
^ the original application was barred by limitation and consequently the
: respondent had moved an application to seek condonation of delay. -The petitioner had filed its counter reply specifically stating that the original application was hopelessly barred by_limitation.
The Original Application related to an incident of 2009 whereas the
\ . same had been filed only in the year 2013. Mr. Sinha,,.submits th^.the
2017:DHC:8836-DB 4,^- / 4'.
Tribunal allowed the application seeking condonation of delay in a mechanical manner without application of mind and without giving any reasons. - - '
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the, respondents submits that no specific reply had been filed by the •Petitioners^ to the delay application and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in; allowing, the application for condonation of delay.
In our view, even if no reply was filed it was incumbent upon the
Tribunal to examine the reasons for seeking condonation of delay in the light ofthe delay period involved in the case.
The Tribunal should, therefore, have bestowed its consideration on the said application and giv^easons for allowing the same. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order-and remand the matter back to the Tribunal, for reconsideration on the aspect of condonation of delay. . , The petition as well as the applications stand disposed ofin the above terms. ~ ' /
The parties shall appear before the Tribunal,on 30.10.2017.
^ Vm]^SANGHI,J XI, J OCTOBER 10, 2017 saurabh
2017:DHC:8836-DB
JUDGMENT