Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

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   

 

Latest Legal News