Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.35 seconds)

Delhi Development Authority vs Sh. Radhey on 9 September, 2020

6. It further appears that the present appellant has also sought condonation of delay of 273 days, in filing the present RCA DJ No. 161/2017 DDA V. Radhey DOD : 09.09.2020 Page No.5 of 32 appeal, mainly, on the grounds that the Ld. Counsel for the appellant due to inadvertence had mis­tagged the brief of the present appeal, marked to him with another file of similar nomenclature and therefore, appeal was not filed timely, due to oversight. In the reply filed, to the application for condonation of delay, the grounds taken by the present appellant for condonation of delay, have been forcefully, controverted and even the earlier Ld. Counsel for the present respondents, Sh. Gaurav Puri had filed written arguments, in opposition to the application on 13.08.2020 but on 04.09.2020 a joint submission was made by the Ld. Counsels for both sides, present, that the delay may be condoned by this court and appeal may be taken up for adjudication on merits thereafter. Hence, delay of 273 days in filing the present appeal against the impugned order, dated 21.01.2017 stands condoned in the interest of justice and appeal is now taken up for final adjudication on merits.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil Sood vs S.K. Saruaria on 6 January, 1997

Relying on this decision, this Court in various decisions has held that after expiry of 30 days from date of publication of the award the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court becomes functus officio and has thus no jurisdiction to entertain an application filed beyond expiry of 30 days (see: Jagdamba Auto Industries v. Kamal Yadav , Management of Delhi Development Authority v. Shri Radhey Shyam Tyagi & Anr., 1996(11) L.LJ. 139 and D.D.A. v. Pradeep Kumar, 1996(74) I.F.L.R.2556). We are in respectful agreement with the views expressed in these decisions.
1