Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

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