Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Security Printing & Minting Corpn. of India Ltd. vs Workmen

Supreme Court11 December 2009Surinder Singh Nijjar · Tarun Chatterjee

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a party fails to attend a hearing due to administrative oversight by its counsel's office, and thereafter provides an application for restoration with reasons satisfying the appellate court, the orders dismissing the original petition for default and affirming that dismissal shall be set aside and the matter restored for hearing on merits, provided the party pays the stipulated costs within the prescribed time.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8460 OF 2009(Arising out of SLP ) No.24113 of 2009)

Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. ...Appellant

VERSUS

The Workmen through the General Secretary & Ors. ...Respondents

O R D E R

Leave granted.

This is an appeal from an order passed by a

Division Bench of the High Court at Bombay in LPA

No. 202 of 2008, by which an order of a learned

Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 5400 of 1996 was

affirmed. The Writ Petition filed by the appellant

was dismissed for default as it was not attended by

the learned counsel for the appellant at the time

of hearing.

An application for restoration of the Writ

Petition was filed in which the reason for not 2

attending was that the clerk of the learned

counsel, who looked after the matter, missed the

matter on board. The learned Single Judge rejected

the application and being aggrieved, a Letters

Patent Appeal was filed, which was also dismissed

by the Division Bench of the High Court.

Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the

appellants have come to this Court by way of a

Special Leave Petition, which on grant of leave,

was heard in presence of the learned counsel for

the parties. Having heard the learned counsel for

the parties and after going through the application

for restoration and the reasons mentioned therein,

we are satisfied with the reasons given by the

appellants in their application for restoration for

not attending the writ petition at the time of

hearing.

For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned orders

are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the writ

petition is restored to its original file, which 3

will be heard on merits subject to payment of

Rs.20,000/- as costs by the appellant to be paid to

the respondents within two months from this date.

In default, this appeal shall stand dismissed and

the order of the High Court shall stand affirmed.

In the event, the amount is paid, the writ petition

shall be heard on merits within a period of three

months from the date of depositing the amount, as

mentioned hereinabove. There will be no order as to

costs.

.......................................................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; .............................................................J. December 11, 2009. [Surinder Singh Nijjar]

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free