Dtc Securities Limited vs Jharkhand State Mineral Development ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4975 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Dtc Securities Limited vs Jharkhand State Mineral Development ... on 17 April, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                       2025:JHHC:11578-DB




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
        Civil Review No.06 of 2020
        (with I.A. No.5953 of 2020)
DTC Securities Limited, having its office at 1-Netaji Subhash Road,
P.O. G.P.O. Kolkata, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 (West
Bengal), through its Authorised Signatory, namely, Santosh Agarwal,
aged about 50 years, son of Late Moti Lal Agarwal, resident of 130,
Dakshindari Road, Lake Town, P.O. Shreebhumi, P.S. Lake Town,
District North Parganas (West Bengal).
                                  ...   Petitioner/Respondent/Petitioner
                          Versus
1. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation, through its
   Managing Director, having its office at Khanij Nigam Bhawan,
   Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
2. General Manager (Mines), Jharkhand State Mineral Development
   Corporation, having its office at Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Doranda,
   P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
                          ...     Respondents/Appellants/Opp. Parties
3. Basant Poddar, son of Sri K.K. Poddar, having his office at Sri
   Gopal Complex, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, Town & District Ranchi
   (Jharkhand).
                      ...      Respondents/Appellants/Opp. Parties
                          ---------
CORAM:              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                          ---------
For the Petitioner:       Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate (through VC)
                          Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For Resp. Nos.1&2:        Mr. Karamdeo, Advocate
                          ---------
05/Dated: 17.04.2025
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral)

1. This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act, 1963 to condone delay of 664 days in filing the review petition

challenging the judgment dt. 15.02.2018 in L.P.A. No. 537 of 2012.

2. Though it is contended in the application for condonation of

delay that the counsel for the applicant did not notice about the listing

of the appeal on 15.02.2018 and remained absent, which occasioned

2025:JHHC:11578-DB

the delay, we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the applicant also

to check up what happened to the matter in which it is a party.

3. Also, the issue in the L.P.A. is related to the termination of an

agreement dt. 04.05.2011 done on 17.01.2012 and the basis for the

order in the Letters Patent Appeal was that even the life of the original

agreement came to an end on 04.05.2016. In these circumstances,

we do not see any reason to either condone delay or to review the

order passed in the L.P.A. at this point of time.

4. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

5. Consequently, the review application is also dismissed.

(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manoj/Pramanik/Cp.2