Back
C. M. POONACHA
M. G. Jagadish Since Deceased By Lrs M. J. Vijayalakshmi, Akhila D Ananthram – Appellant
Versus
Additional Registrar of Co-Operative Societies – Respondent
ORDER :
C.M. Poonacha, J.
The present writ petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 31.3.2015 passed in Appeal No.588/1999 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') and for the other reliefs.
2. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the present petition are that one Sri. M.G.Jagadish (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), a member of the second respondent - society, was allotted an industrial site bearing No.7 in Vijinapura Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring east to west 50 feet, north to south 100 feet in the Industrial layout called "OMR Layout" and possession of the said site was handed over to him vide Possession Certificate dated 17.6.1970. Construction in the said site was required to be undertaken within a specified time frame. Having failed to do so, the Board of the second respondent - society vide resolution dated 24.8.1989 cancelled the allotment of the said site and the said cancellation was communicated vide letter dated 8.9.1989 which was admittedly received on 12.9.1989. On 9.8.1996 a dispute was raised by the deceased before the Additional Director, Department of In
A party's consistent efforts to negotiate and explain delays in legal proceedings can warrant the condonation of delay if sufficient cause is established, especially concerning property rights.
Conduct, behaviour and attitude relating to inaction/negligence by the appellant disentitle him to seek discretionary relief.
The court emphasized the importance of establishing joint family property and the need to satisfactorily explain inordinate delay in filing an appeal, as per Sec. 96 of CPC and Sec. 51 of the Limitat....
Failure to record reasons for condoning inordinate unexplained delay violates natural justice; constitutes jurisdictional error warranting writ interference under Article 226 despite alternate remedy....
The discretion to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be exercised judiciously, ensuring substantial justice while adhering to statutory principles.
The court ruled that the petitioners failed to establish sufficient cause to condone a 1325-day delay in filing an appeal, emphasizing the necessity of a bona fide explanation under the Limitation Ac....
Point of law: While considering the application for condonation of delay no straight jacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not. E....
(1) Law of limitation is founded on public policy – Appeal which is preferred after expiry of limitation is liable to be dismissed.(2) Bar of limitation – Delay is not liable to be condoned merely be....
The sufficiency of the cause for condoning delay is paramount, and a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' is justified when no mala fides are present, despite the length of the delay.
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
