Manche Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Manche Gowda vs State of Karnataka and ors.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Karnataka Decided Aug 31, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/386069

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/386069
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: N.K. Jain, C.J. and ;Ajit J. Gunjal, J.
Decided On: Aug 31, 2004
Case Number: Writ Appeal Nos. 2631 and 2632 of 2004
Subject: Constitution
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Sections 7A &14B: [P.D.Dinakaran, C.J. & V.Gopala Gowda,J] Recovery of interest and damages -Whether amounts to double jeopardy? Delay in payment of amount by employer Held, No opportunity of hearing is required to be granted to employer when he is required to pay simple interest under Section 7Q. Whereas under S...

Key legal issue: Constitution
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manche Gowda

Advocate Anuradha S.R., Adv. ;for D.L.N. Rao, Adv.

Respondent

State of Karnataka and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 2004(7)KarLJ465

Excerpt

- sections 7a &14b: [p.d.dinakaran, c.j. & v.gopala gowda,j] recovery of interest and damages -whether amounts to double jeopardy? delay in payment of amount by employer held, no opportunity of hearing is required to be granted to employer when he is required to pay simple interest under section 7q. whereas under section 14b reasonable opportunity of hearing is to be given before levying damages on employer. further, on furnishing convincing explanation, employer is not liable to pay damages under section 14b. hence payment of simple interest by employer under section 7q does not amount to double jeopardy......and perused the material on record.4. generally this court is liberal in condoning the delay if sufficient and reasonable cause has been shown. in the instant case the application for certified copy of the order was applied for after the expiry of the limitation period. the appellant cannot take advantage of the time spent in this court, as the appellant has filed copy application for certified copy. that itself is not sufficient to dispense with the production of the certified copy. to our mind, it is necessary that the party should apply for certified copy in his own case, though the judgment is common, unless he or she satisfies the court that certified copy has been filed in time and the same is not made available. production of certified copy on the ground that the same is produced in the other case, cannot be dispensed with. the learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed that the writ appeal filed against the common order has not been entertained by this court. in any view of the matter in the facts of the given case, we do not find any reason to condone the delay. under the circumstances, i.a. no. 3 of 2004 is dismissed. consequently these appeals are dismissed as barred by time.

Full Judgment

N.K. Jain, C.J.

1. These writ appeals are filed against the order dated 6-4-2004 passed in the W.P. Nos. 22934 of 1996 and 13499 of 1998 whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petitions with liberty to make representations before the respondent-authorities requesting them for some relief at least in the calculation of the price for the mineral excavated and supplied Intra-State or Inter-State or exported outside the country.

2. These appeals are filed along with I.A. No. 3 of 2004 for condonation of delay of 18 days. It is stated that the appellant filed the appeals along with an application for dispensation of the certified copy of the impugned order as he had filed the same in other connected appeals. Since the office raised an objection regarding non-production of certified copy of the impugned order, he applied for the certified copy of the order on 12-8-2004 and the same was granted on 16-8-2004 and thereafter he refiled the papers along with the certified copy of the order. Hence he has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeals.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record.

4. Generally this Court is liberal in condoning the delay if sufficient and reasonable cause has been shown. In the instant case the application for certified copy of the order was applied for after the expiry of the limitation period. The appellant cannot take advantage of the time spent in this Court, as the appellant has filed copy application for certified copy. That itself is not sufficient to dispense with the production of the certified copy. To our mind, it is necessary that the party should apply for certified copy in his own case, though the judgment is common, unless he or she satisfies the Court that certified copy has been filed in time and the same is not made available. Production of certified copy on the ground that the same is produced in the other case, cannot be dispensed with. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not disputed that the writ appeal filed against the common order has not been entertained by this Court. In any view of the matter in the facts of the given case, we do not find any reason to condone the delay. Under the circumstances, I.A. No. 3 of 2004 is dismissed. Consequently these appeals are dismissed as barred by time.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2004 Same Parties Manche Gowda vs State of Karnataka and ors. Same Subject Constitution Same Judge N.K. Jain, C.J. and ;Ajit J. Gunjal, J.

Constitution