Slp
K Karunakaran
(Querist) 12 February 2013
This query is : Resolved
The case is individual Vs HR & CE Department, Govt Of Tamil Nadu. The trial court, gave the judgement in favor of the individual. The Appellate court confirmed the judgement of trial court and the second appeal at the Madras High Court also confirmed the original judgement.
It took 29 years. It is a simple GO which ruined the life. The individual is 74 years old.
Now, the Executive officer filed a SLP in Supreme Court before the 90 days time limit. Since, SLP is defective a diary number was assigned.
But, Now, it is more than 90 days since the date of Madras High Court Order. More than five months from the date of judgement.
Now the query is
(1) Will Supreme Court accept the defective SLP, because 90 days time limit is over by now.
(2) How long the executive officer can prolong without rectifying the SLP.
(3) I am the son of above party. Can we,
myself and my father - the party, represent the case and reply in person, in case SLP is accepted.
(4)Procedures to represent the case personally. Mostly I will be answering on behalf of my father, with his presence. He can speak only Tamil.
Kindly reply and help me.
Warm Regards
ajay sethi
(Expert) 12 February 2013
yes you can appear in person . howver since you are not familar with either hindi or English better engage a lawyer to fight your case
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 12 February 2013
contact senior lawyer of SC.
K Karunakaran
(Querist) 13 February 2013
Respected RK Nanda Sir,
Respected Ajay Sethi Sir,
Thank you very much for your reply. We are not in a situation to handle the financial burden for us, hence the decision.
If possible, kindly reply to my query (1) and (2).
Have a Good Day.
Thank you very much.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 13 February 2013
contact legal aid centre in supreme court . an application will be made for condonation of delay in filing SLP . if court is satisfied it may condone delay
Anirudh
(Expert) 13 February 2013
Dear Mr. Sethi,
There is no delay in filing of the SLP. The opposite party has already filed the SLP within time but there is some defect in the SLP which needs to be removed by the Opposite party.
Unless the querist make available the title of the case, it is not possible for any one to find out the exact status of the matter.
As regards the condonation of delay, the question does not arise as even as per the Querist, the SLP has been filed within 90 days.
Only the party (i.e. father) would be allowed to speak and not anybody else (son) on his behalf, as the son does not happen to be a lawyer/Advocate.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 13 February 2013
thanks for correcting me .
K Karunakaran
(Querist) 13 February 2013
The following are the defects as mentioned in the SC website.
''
FOLLOWING ARE THE DEFECTS :
1. SLP(C) HAS NOT BEEN FILED IN FORM NO.28 WITH CERTIFICATE AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 17.6.1997.(II) THE PRESCRIBED COURT FEE HAS NOT BEEN PAID
''
Respected Aniruth Sir,
Thank you very much. Forum like this and good people like you are spreading the knowledge to ordinary people like me.
I am really thankful to all the forum members and especially to yourself, ajay sir and Nanda sir.
Will the court generally condone the delay of this nature?
ajay sethi
(Expert) 13 February 2013
generally time is given for rectifying defects . if Pettioner fails to rectfy defects within prescribed period SLP would be rejected for non payment of court fees .
Anirudh
(Expert) 13 February 2013
Normally such defects are removed by the Advocate on Record within the time granted by the Registry.
Therefore, I don't think that the defects will remain unattended.
In any case, there is no delay in filing the SLP. Therefore condonation of delay does not arise.
By repeatedly asking this question, you seem to be more anxious that the SLP should be dismissed as time-barred. Please note in this case that will not happen. It is only defect which needs to be removed.
Unless you indicate the diary number, or case title, it will not be possible for any one of us to verify and tell you the current status of the matter.
K Karunakaran
(Querist) 13 February 2013
Respected Ajay Sethi Sir,
Thank You very much for your kind reply.
Respected Anirudh Sir,
Thank you very much for your kind reply.
Becasue of the age of my father, I was very much concerned, hence the expectation.
I am more concerned about sub-judice entanglements, that is why I didn't mention the dairy number in the public forum. It is too scary for ordinary people like me.
I am ready to share all the details in a private mail.
Regards.
K Karunakaran
osp2osp.forum@gmail.com
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 13 February 2013
You can share your details to either of the experts in his private mail box or may engage either of them to go through your real problem.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 13 February 2013
thanks for your appreciation
