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

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

 

Latest Legal News