Davinder Aggarwal vs Bennett Colemn & Co. Ltd.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4735 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                    +    RFA No.625/2010

                                Date of Reserve : 12th July, 2011
%                       Date of decision : 23rd September, 2011

      DAVINDER AGGARWAL             ..... Appellant
                    Through : Mr. Rahul Sharma, Adv.
               versus

      BENNETT COLEMN & CO. LTD.    ..... Respondent
                   Through : Mr. K. Datta, Adv.

CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may            NO
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?           NO

3.      Whether the judgment should be                   NO
        reported in the Digest?

                          JUDGMENT

J.R. MIDHA, J.

* CM No.1556/2010 in RFA No.625/2010

1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree

whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the appellant's

suit for recovery of `4,59,070/- and mandatory injunction.

2. There is a delay of 571 days in filing of the appeal. The

appellant is seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal

on the ground that he filed a review application before the

learned Trial Court on 24th July, 2008, which was dismissed by

the learned Trial Court on 21st May, 2010. It is stated that the

appellant was under the bonafide belief that the review

application would be allowed and, therefore, he did not file the

appeal. This case does not fall within Section 14 of the

Limitation Act as the appellant was well aware that the

appropriate remedy against the impugned judgment and

decree was the appeal. Even if the period during which the

appellant was pursuing the review application is excluded,

there is a delay of 145 days. There is no explanation for the

delay of 145 days. As such, no case for condonation of delay is

made out.

3. Even otherwise, there is no merit in the case of the

appellant, who was working as an Assistant Manager with the

respondent and was terminated vide notice dated 13th June,

2003 in terms of the Clause 9 of the appointment letter, which

provided that the services could be terminated by written

notice on either side by one month written notice or salary in

lieu thereof. The appellant challenged the termination and

sought reinstatement along with back wages. The learned

Trial Court held the termination to be valid in terms of clause 9

of the appointment letter. There is no infirmity in the findings

of the learned Trial Court inasmuch as the specific

performance of a contract of personal services is specifically

barred by Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act.

4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, no case for

condonation of delay is made out and, therefore, the

application is dismissed.

RFA No. 625/2010

Dismissed as barred by limitation.

SEPTEMBER 23, 2011                                 J.R. MIDHA, J.
Dev