"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Lack of Diligence and Bona Fides Cannot Be Rewarded: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against High Court’s Refusal to Condone 12-Year Delay

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated April 3, 2024, has dismissed an appeal against the High Court’s decision refusing to condone a 12-year delay in an application for the restoration of a dismissed writ petition. The case involved a lease property dispute and highlighted the criticality of adherence to principles of limitation and equity in judicial proceedings.

Facts and Issues: The dispute pertains to a property leased by the respondent to the appellants, where the latter breached the lease terms. A suit for recovery of possession and arrears resulted in a decree favoring the respondent. The appellants’ subsequent appeals were dismissed at various judicial levels. The pivotal issue revolved around the condonation of a significant delay of 12 years and 158 days by the appellants in seeking the restoration of their writ petition, which was dismissed in 2006 for non-prosecution.

Diligence and Bona Fides: The Court observed the appellants’ lack of diligence and bona fides in pursuing the matter. The principles of limitation and equity were deemed against the appellants.

Government Bodies and Delay Condonation: The Court emphasized that government bodies should not expect special treatment in delay condonation and underscored the need for bona fides and diligence in such matters.

Reference to Case Laws: The Court referred to various cases like Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited, underscoring the principles governing the condonation of delays.

Observations on Condonation of Delay: The Court made it clear that lengthy delays need solid justification and that the concept of substantial justice should not override procedural laws.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s refusal to condone the 12-year delay. It emphasized that the appellants failed to demonstrate the requisite diligence and bona fides necessary for condonation of delay. The Court affirmed that there was no error in the High Court’s judgment under its supervisory jurisdiction. No order as to costs was made.

Date of Decision: April 3, 2024

Union of India & Anr. Vs Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR

 

Similar News