Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Karl Marx General Labour Union vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 30 June, 2014

Author: Vijay Manohar Sahai

Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai, R.P.Dholaria

            C/CA/4405/2014                                   ORDER




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4405 of 2014
                                       In
                 MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1744 of 2014
                                       In
                     CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12240 of 2013
                                       In
      LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 1639 of 2013
                                       In
               SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5799 of 2011

================================================================
           KARL MARX GENERAL LABOUR UNION....Applicant(s)
                             Versus
         AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
PARTY-IN-PERSON, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR
                 SAHAI
                 and
                 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA

                               Date : 30/06/2014


                                  ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI) [1] This is an application for condonation of delay of 80 days in filing Misc. Civil Application.

[2] We have heard party-in-person Hemant Balkrishna Gor, Secretary of Karl Marx General Labour Union and Mr. H. S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent.

Page 1 of 2 C/CA/4405/2014 ORDER

[3] Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondent wherein the application for condonation of delay has been opposed. [4] Considering the contents of the application as well as affidavit- in-reply filed by the respondent, it cannot be said that the delay caused in filing the Misc. Civil Application has remained totally unexplained. Therefore, we are of the view that the delay caused in filing Misc. Civil Application deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Delay is condoned.

(V.M.SAHAI, J.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) vijay Page 2 of 2