Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |    

Delay Caused Due To Negligence Of Previous Counsel And Personal Health Issues: Delhi High Court Condoned 1142 Days Delay

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court today allowed the condonation of a delay of 1142 days in the re-filing of an appeal in the case of Rajiv Agarwal versus Balmer Lawrie Co Ltd. This decision underscores the judiciary’s empathetic approach towards litigants impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and other unforeseen circumstances.

Justice Jasmeet Singh, presiding over the matter, highlighted the importance of a liberal interpretation of ‘sufficient cause’ under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. “The word ‘sufficient cause’ is to be given a liberal construction to advance substantial justice,” Justice Singh observed, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.

The appellant, represented by Mr. Puneet Taneja and his team, faced a significant delay due to the negligence of their previous counsel and personal health issues. Furthermore, the pandemic’s impact was taken into consideration, with the court noting, “COVID-19 pandemic halted the systems in a humongous way.”

In this landmark judgment, the court also referred to several Supreme Court rulings, emphasizing the need for a compassionate approach in legal proceedings, particularly when no negligence or mala fides can be imputed to the party involved. Justice Singh stated, “It is the duty of the legal system to ensure that no innocent party suffers injustice merely due to the default of his advocate.”

The decision comes as a relief to the appellant, who had Initially filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 5,53,022, which was dismissed by the trial court. With this ruling, the High Court has set a significant precedent, balancing the legal principles with the realities faced by litigants in extraordinary circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Date of decision: 19.12.2023

RAJIV AGARWAL  VS BALMER LAWRIE CO LTD   

 

Similar News