GRANTS BAIL IN NDPS CASE, HOLDS DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS ALONE INSUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION Foreign Conviction Does Not Shield Accused from Indian Prosecution: Uttarakhand High Court Denies Bail in Bitcoin Money Laundering Case Forfeiture of Earnest Money Must Be Reasonable, No Interest Payable If Buyer Cancels Due to Falling Property Prices: Supreme Court IBPS | Exam Bodies Must Provide Scribes and Extra Time to All Disabled Candidates, Not Just Those With Benchmark Disabilities: Supreme Court Minor Discrepancies in Witness Statements Do Not Discredit Their Reliability," Rules Punjab and Haryana High Court in Murder Case Suspicion, No Matter How Strong, Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Karnataka High Court Acquits Two in Murder Case Prolonged Incarceration Violates Article 21 – Bail Granted Despite NDPS Act Restrictions: Kerala High Court Kolkata Book Fair Not a Public Function: Calcutta High Court Dismisses VHP's Writ Petition A Gift With Conditions is Not a Gift in Perpetuity – Violation of Purpose Mandates Reversion: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Demand Advocate in Domestic Enquiry Unless Employer’s Representative is a Legally Trained Mind: Bombay High Court Milkman as Scribe Raises Eyebrows: High Court Dismisses Property Claim Over Suspicious Will Contractor Bound by Contractual Terms, No Right to Claim Damages After Accepting Extensions: Supreme Court On Failure of the Highest Bidder, Property Must Be Re-Auctioned, Private Negotiation Impermissible: Karnataka High Court Preventive Detention Without Procedural Compliance is Unconstitutional: Kerala High Court Quashes Detention Order Under KAAPA Courts Are for Litigants, Not the Other Way Around: Madras High Court Overhauls Family Court Procedures Landlord is the Best Judge of His Requirement; Tenant Cannot Dictate Alternative Properties: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Eviction Khatedari Rights Cannot Be Claimed Over SC Land Through Adverse Possession: Rajasthan High Court A Law Cannot Be Struck Down on Overruled Precedents: Calcutta High Court Upholds West Bengal Entry Tax Act Producer of Film Is First Owner of Soundtrack Unless Contract States Otherwise: Delhi High Court Affirms Saregama’s Rights Mere Refusal to Repay a Loan Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Under Section 306 IPC: Allahabad High Court Mere Re-Appreciation of Evidence Is Not Permissible in a Second Appeal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Merely Alleging Money Laundering Without Evidence is an Abuse of Legal Process: Bombay High Court Imposed 1 Lakh Cost on ED Right to Private Defence is Not Absolute and Cannot Extend to Inflicting Fatal Injuries: Punjab and Haryana High Court Failure to Pay Business Dues Does Not Constitute a Criminal Offense: Calcutta High Court Quashes Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust Proceedings Income Tax | Reassessment Notices Must Pass Surviving Time Test—Delhi High Court Directs AOs to Comply with Supreme Court's Rajeev Bansal Ruling Perjury Allegations Against Wife and Counsel Dismissed; Court Imposes Costs for Frivolous Litigation: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Permits Protest on Temple Land Encroachment Issue, Imposes Restrictions for Public Order A Senior Citizen’s Right to Peace Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Permissive Occupant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Eviction of Son-in-Law from Father-in-Law’s House Widows Applying on Merit Cannot Be Denied Relaxation Under Two-Child Norm: Rajasthan High Court

Gross Negligence and Inaction Cannot Be Overlooked in Condonation of Delay: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Due to 14-Year Delay Without Satisfactory Explanation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India on April 8, 2024, the Court addressed the pivotal issue of condonation of delay, emphasizing the impermissibility of gross negligence and lack of due diligence in the context of legal procedures.

 

The appeal pertained to a land dispute involving the appellant, K.B. Lal, challenging the orders of the High Court and lower courts, which dismissed his application under Order IX, Rule 7 of the CPC. The application sought to recall an order proceeding ex-parte against him due to an 11-year delay in filing and a subsequent 6-year gap in taking action. The key issue was whether such a significant delay could be condoned under the provisions of the Limitation Act.

 

Doctrine of Liberal Construction: The Court recognized that the term ‘sufficient cause’ should be liberally interpreted to promote justice. However, this does not extend to cases of gross negligence or lack of due diligence (Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors.).

Judicious Exercise of Discretion: The Court observed that discretion in condoning delay must not favor parties demonstrating gross negligence or inadequate reasons for delay (Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi & Ors.).

Role of Vigilance and Bona Fides: The necessity for litigants to demonstrate bona fides and vigilance in legal proceedings was underscored, with the Court cautioning against accepting fanciful or concocted explanations for delay.

Analysis of the Appellant's Conduct: The Court noted contradictions in the appellant's explanations and lack of immediate action even after becoming aware of the ex-parte order. This was seen as indicative of gross negligence.

Decision: The Supreme Court found no satisfactory explanation for the appellant's 14-year delay. The Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, emphasizing the importance of due diligence and timely action in legal proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Date of Decision: April 08, 2024

K.B. Lal vs. Gyanendra Pratap & Ors.

Similar News