2007 (1) TMI 636

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Narayan Nair, Adv For the Respondent : R. Sathish, Adv. JUDGMENT AR. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.Sathish, learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dt. 13.12.2005 in C.R.P. No. 1177 of 2005. Before the High....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... decided against the appellant. Reserving the said right to the appellant, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed by the High Court. 4. Our attention was also drawn to the order passed by the Principal Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram dt. 30.09.2005 in I.A. No. 1309/2005 in O.P. (Arb.) 78/1995 which was filed by the State of Kerala against the appellant herein. The court has considered whether ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the award. When a mandatory provision is not complied with and when the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay, only on the sympathetic ground. The orders passed by the learned Sub Judge and also by the High Court are far from satisfactory. No reason whatsoever has been given to condone the inordinate delay of 3320 days. It is well-con....