High CourtsDivision Bench(2006) 06 MAD CK 0125

The Chairman and Managing Director The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd. vs M. Anandan and The Presiding Officer Principal Labour Court

Madras High Court · Decided on 29 June 2006

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Dhanapalan, J · P. Sathasivam, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Appeal No. 790 of 2006 and MP. No. 2 of 2006

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 354 words

P. Sathasivam, J.—The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 24.11.2005 made in WPMP. No. 35220

of 2005 in WP. No. 16768 of 1997, in and by which the learned Judge dismissed the said petition filed for condonation of delay of 222 days in

filing the restoration petition against the dismissal order made in WP. No. 16768 of 1997 dated 18.01.2005.

2.

Mr. C. Kamadevan, takes notice for the contesting first respondent.

3.

It is brought to our notice that when the WPMP. No. 35220 of 2005 listed on 26.04.2004 and 11.09.2004, Mr. Perumal''s name was

mentioned on behalf of the writ petitioner in the cause list, however, according to him, in the cause list dated 18.01.2005, his name did not appear,

due to which he failed to appear before the learned Judge and the petition was dismissed for default. According to the learned counsel for the

appellant though this aspect was projected before the learned Judge, the same was not accepted.

4.

On going through the materials placed and in the light of the statement made by the learned counsel, we accept the explanation offered and set

aside the order dated 24.11.2005 made in WPMP. No. 35220 of 2005.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent fairly states that inasmuch as the writ petition is of the year 1997, he has no objection in

setting aside the earlier order dated 18.01.2005, dismissing the writ petition for default and restoring the same on its file. The stand taken by the

first respondent is appreciable one.

6.

In the light of the above statement, delay in filing restoration petition is condoned and the earlier order dated 18.01.2005, dismissing the writ

petition for default is also set aside.

7.

In view of the above order, which is passed with the consent of the first respondent, Office is directed ti post Writ Petition No. 16768 of 1997

for final hearing before the concerned Judge dealing with the subject within a period of two weeks.

The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly . No costs. Consequently, connected MP., is closed.