Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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.

Latest Legal News