Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

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