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    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |    

Gujarat High Court Upholds Strict Adherence to Statutory Limitation Periods in Appeal Filings

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court has reinforced the critical importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods in legal proceedings. The bench, comprising Honourable Mr. Justice Ashutosh Shastri and Honourable Mr. Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak, dismissed applications for condonation of a 38-day delay in filing substantive First Appeals.

The Court’s decision, pronounced on December 18, 2023, emphasized the necessity of strict compliance with statutory timelines, particularly in matters involving the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The ruling came as a response to applications seeking condonation of delay in challenging an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal (PMLA), New Delhi.

In their observation, the Justices stated, “It is a trite law of Rules of Interpretation that if the language of the statutory provision is simple and unambiguous, it should be read with the clear intention of the Legislature.” This statement underscores the Court’s stance on the non-negotiable nature of statutory deadlines.

The Court meticulously analyzed the provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the Gujarat High Court Rules, highlighting the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures and timelines. The judgment pointed out that even a brief delay of 38 days could not be condoned when it exceeded the maximum period prescribed in the statute.

The decision reflects the Court’s commitment to upholding the law’s integrity and discouraging any leniency in matters of statutory limitations. The ruling sends a clear message to all parties involved in legal proceedings about the necessity of timely action and adherence to procedural mandates.

Date of Decision: December 18, 2023

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ASSISTANT DIRECTOR VS MANSUKH SHAH HUF

 

Similar News