REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

PALANISAMI Appellant

V/S

Thavamalligai Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

TAMIL NADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD. TUTICORIN VERSUS APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE TAMIL NADU SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT,MADURAI AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
K.M. BALASUBRAMANIAM VS. C. LOGANATHAN AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
RAMLAL VS. REWA COALFIELDS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
AJIT SINGH THAKUR SINGH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
N BALAKRISHNAN VS. M KRISHNAMURTHY [REFERRED TO]
M K PRASAD VS. P ARUMUGAM [REFERRED TO]
RAM NATH SAO ALIAS RAM NATH SAHU VS. GOBARDHAN SAO [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL AROMA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD VS. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
POSTMASTER GENERAL VS. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
C SUBRAMANIAM VS. TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD [REFERRED TO]
KANDASWAMY VS. KRISHNAMANDIRAM TRUST KARUR [REFERRED TO]
G JAYARAMAN VS. DEVARAJAN [REFERRED TO]
SHANMUGAM VS. CHOKKALINGAM [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 2540 days (6 -? years) in filing the appeal suit.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner appellants made a submission that the petitioners have submitted an application to get Aadhar Card and Voter ID to prove one Sri.Arumbayal is the wife of Ramasamy, to establish their case. Under those circumstances, the delay occurred and there was a delay in getting the copy of the Aadhar Card and Voter ID. Thus, the delay of 2540 days is to be condoned.

(3.) Perusal of the entire affidavit filed in support of the civil miscellaneous petition reveals that there is no valid reason for the purpose of condoning such an enormous delay of more than 6 -? years. The reason stated that they have waited for the receipt of Aadhar Card and Voter ID, cannot be accepted.

Click here to view full judgment.

PALANISAMI Vs. THAVAMALLIGAI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address