SRI MANOHARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 674
- Decided
- 2 November 1995
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Court held that while the appellant may have some justification for filing late, relief cannot be granted in the absence of a counter‑affidavit, and the matter must be remitted to the Tribunal for merits‑based disposal.
Summary
Sri Manohar appealed against the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal’s dismissal of his service law claim on the ground of laches. The Tribunal had accepted the employer’s explanation for the delay and dismissed the case without a counter‑affidavit from the respondents. The Supreme Court noted that the respondents had not contested the explanation for laches, which gave some justification for the appellant to file the suit at a belated stage. However, because a counter‑affidavit had not been filed, the Court could not grant the relief sought. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Tribunal to consider the merits and dispose of the case according to law. The appeal was disposed of without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant can be permitted to pursue the claim despite the doctrine of laches.
- Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal on the ground of laches is justified when the explanation for delay is unchallenged.
- Whether the absence of a counter‑affidavit by the respondents bars the grant of relief.
Subjects
Judgment
SRI MANOHAR A
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 2, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, .JJ.] B
Service Law :
Tribunal dismissing the case on ground of lache;~E.xplanation given
for !aches not controve1ted by the other employer-Matter remitted back to C
T1ibunal to examine and dispose of the case on moits.
This appeal is against the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal'>
order dismissing the appellant's case on the ground of !aches.
Disposing of the appeal, this Court
D
HELD : In view of the fact that the respondents have not con-
troverted the explanation given for the !aches, there is some justification
for the appellant to tile the proceedings at belated stage. However, the
relief cannot be granted since on counter-affidavit has been filed. The
matter is remitted to the Tribunal to examine the case on merits and E
dispose of the matter according to law. (726-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10213 of
1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.93 of the Karnataka Ad- F
ministrative Tribunal in Application No. 611 of 1993.
R. S. Hagde for P.P. Singh for the Appellant.
Ms. Manjula Kulkarni for M. Veerappa for the Respondents.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
In spite of an opportunity having been given to the respondents to
file counter-affidavit by our order dated October 11, 1993, till date no H
725
•
72fJ SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A counter-affidavit has been filed. The Tribunal had dismissed the case on . "-
the ground of !aches. In view of the fact that the respondents have not
controverted the explanation given for the !aches, we find that there is some
justification for the appellant to file the proceedings at belated stage.
However, the relief cannot be granted here since no counter-affidavit has
been filed. In the circumstances, we remit the matter to the Tribunal to
B examine the case on merits and dispose of the matter according to law.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
G.N. Appeal disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.