AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 181 wordsDelay condoned.
Leave granted.
Application for substitution is allowed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
In our view, considering the nature of controversy, the matter was eminently fit to be decided on merits. We, therefore, not only condone the delay in filing Special Leave Petition but also condone the delay in filing RSA No.846/2013 before the High Court. We, therefore, set aside the dismissal of Second Appeal on the ground of delay, restore the second second appeal on the file of the High Court and request the High Court to dispose of the second appeal as expeditiously as possible.
By Order dated 03.01.2019, we had directed the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in this Court towards costs.
Half of that amount be made over to the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Welfare Fund account and rest be deposited in Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Fund account.
With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
We have not and shall not be taken to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.