SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 192

Supreme Court of India
DALVEER BHANDARI & MUKUNDAKAM SHARMAo
Union of India & Others
Versus
Nripen Sarma
Civil Appeal No.1922 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.14065 of 2008)
Decided on: 17-02-2011

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:B. Krishna Prasad, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Amit Pawan, Advocate.

Dismissal of appeal due to inordinate delay and habitual filing of cases by the Union of India that were hopelessly barred by limitation.

Headnote:

Delay - Appeal Dismissal - The court dismissed the appeal due to inordinate delay in filing, both at the High Court and before the Supreme Court. The High Court observed that there were no sufficient grounds for appeal and that the delay was not justified. The Supreme Court found no satisfactory explanation for the delay and expressed distress at the Union of India's habitual filing of cases that were hopelessly barred by limitation.

Fact of the Case:

The Union of India filed an appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, which had dismissed the appeal due to inordinate delay of 239 days. The Supreme Court also found the appeal to be barred by limitation of 114 days.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay, expressing distress at the habitual filing of cases by the Union of India that were hopelessly barred by limitation. However, it kept the question of law open.

Issues: Inordinate delay in filing the appeal, lack of sufficient cause for condonation of delay, habitual filing of cases by the Union of India that were barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of sufficient cause for condoning the delay, the habitual filing of cases by the Union of India that were hopelessly barred by limitation, and the absence of any tenable ground of appeal.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay, but the question of law was kept open.

Judgment

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned Additional Solicitor General and learned counsel for the respondent.

3. This appeal emanates from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) in Misc. Case No.1569 of 2007 in W.A.No.72020 of 2006. The appeal filed by the Union of India was dismissed by the High Court because of inordinate delay of 239 days. The Division Bench of the High Court, while dismissing the appeal, has observed as under :

"We have gone through the contents of the petition. The delay occurred because of the respondents took their own sweet time to reach the conclusion whether the judgment should be appealed or not. It is not that they were prevented by any reason which is beyond their control to take such a decision in time. Even otherwise, on merits of the case also it does not appear to have any tenable ground of appeal. In the circumstances, we do not see any merits in this petition."

4. We have also gone through the condonation of delay application which was filed in the High Court. In our considered view, the High Court was fully justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay because no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay.

5. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the final judgment dated 10.09.2007 before this Court. This appeal is also barred by limitation of 114 days. There is no satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay before this Court also.

6. The Union of India ought to have been careful particularly in filing this Civil Appeal because the Division Bench, by the impugned order, has dismissed the appeal before it on the ground of delay. It is a matter of deep anguish and distress that majority of the matters filed by the Union of India are hopelessly barred by limitation and no satisfactory explanations exist for condoning inordinate delay in filing those cases.

7. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal on the ground of delay. However, in the larger interest, we are keeping the question of law open.

Appeal dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top