Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Jharkhand High Court Stresses Upholding Limitation Laws: Dismisses Intra-Court Appeal Due to Unsubstantiated Delay Condonation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court underscored the importance of adhering to limitation laws to ensure justice is dispensed promptly and efficiently. The bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhash Chand recently dismissed an Intra-Court Appeal for failure to establish “sufficient cause” for a delay of 156 days in filing the appeal.

The case involved a dispute where the appellant sought to condone the considerable delay in filing the appeal through an interlocutory application. However, the Court, in its judgment dated 18th July, 2023, meticulously analyzed the grounds for condonation, emphasizing that an application for delay condonation is not a mere formality but a critical process that demands genuine and bona fide reasons.

The appellant must convincingly establish sufficient cause for the delay to warrant condonation,” the Court reiterated while citing Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The judges took this opportunity to highlight the rigour of limitation laws, quoting from several authoritative judgments. They observed, “Negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides are vital factors that must be taken into account while considering delay condonation.” The Court also referred to precedents from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, further solidifying the importance of adhering to the statutory timeframes.

The advocate representing the appellant, Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr. SC-I, presented an explanation for the 156-day delay, which the Court carefully examined. However, the Court found the explanation insufficient to satisfy the requirements of “sufficient cause.”

Moreover, the Court rejected an oral version presented by the advocate, stressing the significance of providing substantial and verifiable reasons to condone a delay of such magnitude. The Court referenced similar cases dismissed by the Supreme Court on comparable grounds, establishing consistency in judicial precedents.

“Inordinate delays undermine the essence of time-bound justice and disrupt the sanctity of limitation laws. Such delays can adversely affect the rights of other parties and the overall harmony in the legal system,” the bench remarked in its ruling.

 Date of Decision: 18th July, 2023

The State of Jharkhand  vs Kundan Kandil

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/The_State_Of_Jharkhand_Through_Its_vs_Writ_Petitioner__on_18_July_2023_Jhar.HC_.pdf"]

Latest Legal News