Dileep Kumar Pandey vs. Union Of India
AI Summary
In a crucial procedural order, the Supreme Court condoned a 94-day delay in re-filing a Special Leave Petition concerning a service matter. This decision highlights the court's discretion in overlooking minor procedural lapses to ensure substantive justice, allowing the main petition to proceed despite the delay. It provides relief to the petitioner whose case was against the Union of India regarding a High Court judgment.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
The case involves a Special Leave Petition (Civil) filed by Dileep Kumar Pandey against the Union of India and others, originating from a High Court judgment dated July 12, 2010. There was a delay of 94 days in re-filing this Special Leave Petition at the Supreme Court. An interlocutory application (IA No.1) was filed to seek condonation of this delay.
Timeline of Events
Judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in SA No. 1074/2010.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) filed in the Supreme Court.
Hearing of IA No.1 (application for condonation of delay in re-filing) before Justice R.M. Lodha.
Key Factual Findings
There was a delay of 94 days in re-filing the special leave petition.
Source: Current Court Finding
The application for condonation of delay (IA No.1) was considered and disposed of.
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner, through counsel, implicitly argued for the condonation of the 94-day delay in re-filing the Special Leave Petition, likely citing reasons for the delay in the IA No.1 application.
Respondent's Arguments
The order does not detail arguments from the respondent's side; it can be inferred they would generally oppose condonation or remain neutral if no strong grounds for opposition were present.
Court's Reasoning
The Court, after hearing counsel, decided to condone the 94-day delay in re-filing the special leave petition. This implies that the petitioner provided sufficient cause or explanation for the delay in IA No.1, which the Court found acceptable. The decision is procedural, aimed at allowing the substantive matter to be heard.
- Emphasis on Substantive Justice Over Procedural Technicalities
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Delay of 94 days in re-filing the special leave petition is condoned.
- 2.IA No.1 is disposed of.
Precedential Assessment
Non-Binding (Procedural)
This is a procedural order condoning delay, not a substantive judgment on a point of law. While it illustrates the Supreme Court's approach to procedural lapses, it does not establish a legal precedent on the merits of a case or a new interpretation of law.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Text
ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.12 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IA No.1 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2011 CC 3910/2011 (From the judgement and order dated 12/07/2010 in SA No. 1074/2010 of the HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD) DILEEP KUMAR PANDEY Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for c/delay in refiling SLP and office report) Date: 07/03/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA (IN CHAMBERS) For Petitioner(s) Mr. Santhanam Swaminadhan, Adv. for Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay of 94 days in re-filing the special leave petition is condoned. IA No.1 is disposed of.
˜
(N.S.K. Kamesh) (S.S.R. Krishna) Court Master Court Master
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order