Gujarat High Court
Pareshgiri Jivangiri Goswami vs Gujarat State Electricity Corporation ... on 31 January, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/584/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 584 of
2025
In
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1028 of 2025
================================================================
PARESHGIRI JIVANGIRI GOSWAMI & ORS.
Versus
GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 31/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present application has been filed for condoning the delay of 53 days in filing of the captioned Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Heard learned advocate for the applicants Mr. Samir B. Gohil, who submitted that the applicants are members of the original respondent No.1 Union, i.e. Vijali Karmachari Maha Mandal. The learned Single Judge passed the judgment which went against the original respondent No.1-Union in the writ petition. However, the present applicants were not informed about the decision of the learned Single Judge.
Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:02:59 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/584/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined
3. It is submitted by learned advocate for the applicants that after Diwali holidays, when the applicants inquired about the progress in the matter, they came to know from the Union leaders that the Union lost the case before the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the applicants alongwith other members requested the Union leaders to file an appeal, however, the Union did not file an appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge. It is further submitted that there were total 21 workmen for whom the Union was contesting before the learned Single Judge. All the concerned workmen could not make consensus to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Out of 21 persons, only 8 persons (the present applicants) decided to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge and all these facts have contributed to the above delay.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave has vehemently opposed this application and has submitted that the delay of 53 days is not required to be condoned.
5. Having regard to the facts and considering the averments in the application, this application is allowed and the delay of 53 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.
Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:02:59 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/584/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined
6. Registry is directed to give pucca number to the captioned Appeal and list the same today itself.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J) CAROLINE / DB # 4 Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:02:59 IST 2025