Kerala High Court
Shaji Ashok vs Handicrafts Development Corporation ... on 8 November, 2024
2024:KER:86497
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946
WA NO. 1282 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.2.2022 IN WP(C) NO.3745 OF 2022
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SHAJI ASHOK
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O ASHOK V.N, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KIZHOOR P.O,
THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ASHOK
V N, S/O NARAYANAN V S, AGED 61 YEARS, VALIYAPARAMBIL
HOUSE, KIZHOOR P.O, THRISSUR -680 523.
BY ADVS.
JOHNSON JOSE PANJIKKARAN
T.R.JERRY SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 HANDICRAFTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
REGISTERED OFFICE, PUTHENCHANTHAI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001
2 ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER
HANDICRAFTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE, PUTHENCHANTHAI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001
3 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
UNIT-IN-CHARGE, B-7, KAIRALI STATE EMPORIA COMPLEX,
B.K.S.MARG NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
BY ADV LATHA ANAND
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI RADHAKRISHNAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2024, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:86497
W.A.No.1282 of 2024 &
C.M.Appln.No.1 of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024
Nitin Jamdar, C.J.
Heard Mr. Johnson Jose Panjikkaran, learned counsel for the
Appellant and Adv. Mr. Radhakrishnan representing Ms.Latha Anand,
learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.
2. C.M.Appln. No.1 of 2024 is filed by the Appellant seeking to
condone the delay of 874 days in filing the appeal. This application is
strongly opposed by Respondent No.1 by filing a counter affidavit.
3. The reason given in the affidavit in support of the application
for condonation of delay is in one paragraph that the delay has occurred
only on account of the fact that the Appellant herein filed Cont. Case (C)
No.385 of 2023 and after it was disposed of, the appeal was filed.
4. In the counter affidavit filed, Respondent No.1 has submitted
that this only reason for condonation of delay of contempt petition being
filed is not sufficient.
5. We agree with the Respondent that this cannot be the reason.
Nothing prevented the Appellant from filing the appeal at an early date.
874 days' delay is not a delay of short duration. The Court will have to
consider the facts of each case and the condonation of delay cannot be a
mechanical exercise.
6. In this case, what is put forth is purely a monetary claim which
2024:KER:86497
W.A.No.1282 of 2024 &
stated to have arisen in the year 2014. It is debatable whether a prayer for
monetary claim in a writ petition filed in the year 2022 could be
considered as if a civil suit was filed in a serious issue being the claim
barred by limitation would have arisen. The conduct of the Appellant
does not end there, but it is carried forward in the filing of the appeal
with delay as well. In the matter of commercial nature and monetary
claim, putting a quietus to the transaction is also a matter of societal
interest and the monetary claims cannot be kept on the lingering and
pursued at leisure.
7. Therefore we are not satisfied that a case is made out for
entertaining the application. The delay of 874 days in these facts and
circumstances cannot be condoned. The application is accordingly
dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.
Sd/-
Nitin Jamdar
Chief Justice
Sd/-
S. Manu
Judge
vpv
2024:KER:86497
W.A.No.1282 of 2024 &
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.2.2024
IN CON. CASE(C) 385 OF 2023
