Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay 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