MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Explanation Given For Seeking Condonation of Huge Delay of 1,633 Days Cannot Be Accepted – Supreme Court on State’s Inefficiency

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the State of U.P., citing the state’s failure to provide a valid justification for a delay of 1,633 days in challenging a High Court order.

The judgment revolved around the question of whether the condonation of a substantial delay in filing an SLP could be permitted based on the reasons provided by the state government.

The SLP aimed to overturn a decision from November 13, 2009, by the High Court. However, the petition was not filed until years later, in 2014. The state attributed the delay to administrative hurdles and legal misadvice, asserting that these factors impeded the timely filing of the petition.

Condonation of Delay: The justices criticized the state’s management of its legal affairs, noting that the presence of the state in the High Court hearings negated any claims of ignorance about the order. Justice Ravikumar highlighted, “The explanation given for seeking condonation of huge delay…cannot be accepted,” indicating that bureaucratic delays and mismanagement are unacceptable excuses.

Misrepresentation of Facts: The judgment also pointed out inaccuracies in the state’s representation of related legal precedents, which misled the court about the status of similar cases. This misrepresentation diminished the credibility of the state’s application for delay condonation.

Decision Concluding its findings, the Supreme Court dismissed the condonation of delay application, along with the SLP itself, firmly stating that inefficiencies and errors on the state’s part do not constitute “sufficient cause” under the law.

Date of Decision: May 3, 2024

State of U.P. & Another vs. Mohan Lal

Latest Legal News