Esha Bhattacharjee vs Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(SC) 868

ANIL R.DAVE, DIPAK MISRA
Esha Bhattacharjee – Appellant
Versus
Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

What is the approach to condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act in this case? What factors should be considered in determining whether delay of a short duration versus inordinate delay justifies condonation? What are the consequences of condoning or not condoning a very long delay in filing appeals or applications against interim orders?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the approach to condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act in this case?

What factors should be considered in determining whether delay of a short duration versus inordinate delay justifies condonation?

What are the consequences of condoning or not condoning a very long delay in filing appeals or applications against interim orders?

Judgment :-

Dipak Misra, J.

1. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.

2. The singular question that we intend to address in these appeals, by special leave, is whether the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta is justified in entertaining the CAN No. 365 of 2011 for condoning the delay of 2449 days in A.S.T.A. No. 10 of 2011 preferred against the interim order dated 25.2.2004 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 6124(W) of 2004. It is also worthy to note that the Division Bench in A.S.T.A No. 10 of 2011 in A.S.T. No. 13 of 2011 had directed stay of further proceedings in connection with A.S.T. No. 346 of 2004. Needless to say, the said order is consequential as whole thing would depend upon the issue pertaining to condonation of delay.

3. Sans unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be stated for the purpose of disposal of the present appeals are that the appellant, an Assistant Teacher in language group (Bengali), invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by preferring a writ petition seeking approval of her appointment and for certain other reliefs. The learned single Judge on 25.2.2004 taking note of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 868

ANIL R.DAVE, DIPAK MISRAEsha Bhattacharjee – AppellantVersusManaging Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy – Respondent

What is the approach to condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act in this case?

What factors should be considered in determining whether delay of a short duration versus inordinate delay justifies condonation?

What are the consequences of condoning or not condoning a very long delay in filing appeals or applications against interim orders?

Cases Referred (19)

ANIL R.DAVE, DIPAK MISRA
Esha Bhattacharjee – Appellant
Versus
Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy – Respondent