High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Being A Government Entity Does Not Exempt One From Complying With Procedural Laws – Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Condonation Of 14-Year Delay By Port Authority

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court has set aside the order of a lower court that condoned a 14-year delay by the Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata in filing a written statement in a contractual dispute. Hon’ble Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, presiding over the matter, emphatically noted that “being a government entity does not exempt one from complying with procedural laws unless exceptional circumstances justify such deviation.”

The central legal issue revolved around whether the trial court was justified in using its discretion under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to allow a government entity a prolonged delay in filing its response to a lawsuit. The implications of this decision touch on the broader principles of equality before law and the necessity of timely adjudication in civil disputes.

Inland Vikash Limited filed a suit against the Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata concerning specific performance of a contract. Despite the defendant entering appearance in the suit as early as 2005, a written statement was not filed until 2019, post a contested application for condonation of delay. The plaintiff challenged the trial court’s decision to condone this delay, asserting that it was granted without a satisfactory explanation and contrary to procedural norms established under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Service of Summons and Participation: The court observed that despite claims of non-receipt of summons, the defendant had actively participated in various stages of the proceedings since their first appearance in 2005. This involvement indicated acknowledgment of the proceedings and negated the claim of ignorance due to non-receipt of summons.

Condonation of Delay: Justice Mukherjee criticized the trial court’s decision to overlook the procedural mandates of Order VIII Rule 1, which requires filing of the written statement within a specified timeframe. The court highlighted that the defendant had failed to provide a convincing justification for the 14-year delay, which was essential for such condonation.

Government Litigants: The court addressed the special consideration often given to government entities in litigation, clarifying that such status does not confer an inherent right to deviate from procedural timelines. It was emphasized that exemption from procedural compliance could only be granted under exceptional circumstances, which were absent in this case.

Decision: The High Court, thus, allowed the petition by Inland Vikash Limited, setting aside the lower court’s order that condoned the delay. The application of the petitioner for an ex-parte hearing was granted, affirming the principle that procedural laws apply equally to all litigants, government or otherwise.

Date of Decision: 10.05.2024

Inland Vikash Limited vs. Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata & Anr.

Similar News