Back
B. V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN
State of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Akshaya Jewellers – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay in filing the petition (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against condonation of delay (Para 3) |
| 3. court's reasoning on delay (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. cited precedents on delay (Para 8) |
| 5. final dismissal of the appeal due to delay (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER :
1. Although, Leave has been granted in this case as this case was connected with other appeals, it is nevertheless brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel on both sides that there is a delay of 390 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, which is now converted to an appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even before the High Court, there was a delay of 647 days in filing O.T. Rev. No.103/2018. The High Court refused to condone the delay. Consequently, the revision petition has not been heard on merits. As a result, the interest of the State has been prejudiced. He, therefore, submitted that delay of 390 days in filing the Special Leave Petition may be condoned and further, the delay of 647 days in filing the Tax Revision Petition before the High Court may also be condoned and the matter may be remanded to the High Court for consideration of the case on merits. He submitted that there ar
Delays in filing appeals must be satisfactorily explained; inadequate reasons result in dismissal of applications for condonation.
Huge delay of 1,633 days in filing Special Leave Petition cannot be condoned.
Delay cannot be condoned without a plausible and acceptable explanation.
Sufficient and cogent reasons are required to explain the delay in filing, and government inefficiency in adhering to the period of limitation may not be condoned by the court.
Applicants must clearly specify delay duration and reasons in applications for condonation of delay; failure to do so may lead to deficiencies.
Courts may refuse to condone delays in filing petitions if the explanation offered is unsatisfactory.
Period of limitation – Condonation of delay – No event or circumstance arising after expiry of limitation can constitute sufficient cause – Expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be liberally interpret....
Condonation of delay should not be routine and should only be granted when there is a sufficient cause, as emphasized by the court in this judgment.
Adherence to the period of limitation and discouragement of casual approach by government and public authorities in filing petitions with the Supreme Court.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
