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

Supreme Court Emphasizes Justice-Oriented Approach in Condoning Delay: "Substantial Justice Deserves to be Preferred"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India emphasized a justice-oriented approach while dealing with the condonation of delay in filing appeals. The case, Raheem Shah & Anr. vs. Govind Singh & Ors., pertained to a delay of 52 days in filing an appeal challenging a trial court's judgment.

The bench, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi, took note of the appellant's contention that the judgment was not in their knowledge, which warranted consideration. The court cited the landmark decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107, stating that the expression "sufficient cause" in the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a manner that serves the ends of justice.

The Supreme Court expressed its concern over the prevailing insensitive approach towards delay and stated, "If only the court concerned had been sensitive to the justice-oriented approach rather than the iron-cast technical approach, the litigation between the parties probably would have come to an end much earlier after a decision on the merits of their rival contention."

The court further held that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and the cause of justice being defeated. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred.

In light of these principles, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of both the lower Appellate Court and the High Court and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The case was restored to the file of the lower Appellate Court, where the parties shall put forth their contentions on merits. The court directed the lower Appellate Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible in accordance with the law.

This significant judgment serves as a reminder to all courts to adopt a justice-oriented approach in matters of condonation of delay, allowing litigants a fair opportunity to present their case and ensuring that substantial justice is upheld.

DATE OF DECISION: July 24, 2023

RAHEEM SHAH & ANR. vs GOVIND SINGH & ORS.                 

 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/24-Jul-2023_Raheem_Shah_Vs_Govind_Singh.pdf"]          

Latest Legal News