The Managing Director v. Vimal Kumar

C.M.P. Nos. 10175, 10177, 10181 & 10188 of 2023 in A.S.SR. Nos. 118721 to 118724 of 2022 S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.

AND K. RAJASEKAR,J.

The above C.M.Ps have been filed to condone the delay of 146 days in preferring each of the first appeals.

2.

Though the petitioner has filed the C.M.Ps to condone the delay of 146 days in filing each of the first appeals, the learned counsel for the respondent, by filing counter, would state that the order copy was soon uploaded in the web portal and the delay in preferring each of the appeals is 395 days and not 146 days, as stated by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent would further state that based on the order copy made available in the net, the appeals should have been filed. 3.

A learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 08.01.2019 in W.P.No.5 of 2019 has held that, based on the web copy, an Appeal could be filed without waiting for a certified copy of the order by the Registry. For the sake of convenience and quick way to approach the Appellate Court, the learned Single Judge has granted correct and just relief. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis But, that does not mean that limitation will run from the date on which the

S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.

AND K. RAJASEKAR,J.

nv web copy of the order was made ready. The limitation will run only from the date on which the order copy was made ready by the Registry. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that there has been a delay of 395 days in preferring each of the appeals.

4.

As we are satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the respective C.M.Ps, the delay is condoned and the petitions are ordered as prayed for.

(S.V.N.J.) (K.R.S.J.) nv 05.06.2023 C.M.P. Nos. 10175, 10177, 10181 & 10188 of 2023 in A.S.SR. Nos. 118721 to 118724 of 2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis