Regional Director Employees ... vs Anu Impex
2022 Latest Caselaw 2809 Guj

     C/CA/2248/2019                                 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2022




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2248 of 2019

                      In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 21196 of 2019

==========================================================
REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
                         Versus
                       ANU IMPEX
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SACHIN D VASAVADA(3342) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR JF MEHTA(461) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE

                                Date : 11/03/2022
                                 ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr.SD Vasavada, learned advocate for the applicants and Mr.JF Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent.

2. The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is preferred to condone the delay which has occurred in preferring First Appeal to assail the impugned judgment and award.

3. Mr.Vasavada, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the delay which has occurred in preferring the appeal is explained in paragraph No.3 of the application. He further submits that the applicant was not aware when the impugned judgment was pronounced by the lower Court, as no date for pronouncement of the judgment was given. He submits that immediately after coming to know of the impugned judgment, the copy was

C/CA/2248/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2022

applied and steps were taken for preferring an appeal. He submits that the delay, however, has occurred due to administrative reasons. He further submits that the applicant has a good case on merits. He, therefore, urges the the delay may be condoned.

4. Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent has opposed this application and submits that except the administrative reasons, the delay is not satisfactorily explained. He submits that as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the administrative delay is no ground for condoning the delay. He, therefore, urges the delay may not be condoned.

5. It emerges from the application that after conclusion of the arguments date for pronouncement of the judgment was not given. It appears that thereafter the matter was notified for pronouncement of judgment. However, the learned advocate for the applicant was not aware of the listing of the matter.

6. Considering the averments made in this application and considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the respective parties, the delay is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute.

(A.G.URAIZEE, J) ALI