Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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