Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
Bangalore Development Authority, Rep. By Its Commissioner – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, By Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Urban Development – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the appeal and delay explanation (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claim of land ownership and possession (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. judicial principles for condoning delay (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. elasticity of legal interpretation in sufficient cause (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. conclusion about lack of sufficient cause for delay (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 17.03.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7/2013 (LA-BDA).
3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and meticulously perused the application and the affidavit accompanying the application seeking for condonation of delay of 2160 days in filing the appeal. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. The appellant filed I.A.No.2/2022 seeking condonation of delay of 2160 days in filing the appeal. The said application is accompanied with an affidavit explaining the delay. Before considering the cause shown in the affidavit as to whether the same is sufficient to condone the delay of 2160 days, it would be useful to refer to th
The court held that for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the party must demonstrate sufficient cause, with mere negligence or vague explanations failing to meet this burden.
(1) Limitation – Condonation of delay – Phrase “within such period” signifies that period covered therein extends to not only original period within which, appeal or application, should have been fil....
The law of limitation is to be strictly enforced, and parties, including the government, must provide sufficient cause for any delay in filing appeals; negligence or lack of bona fides will not justi....
The principle that the law of limitation must be strictly applied, and that any request for condonation of delay must be supported by a sufficient and reasonable explanation, which was not met in thi....
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in filing appeals, with negligence and inaction being critical factors.
The court ruled that an inordinate delay in filing an appeal requires a sufficient explanation, and negligence or lack of bona fides can lead to dismissal of the application for condonation.
The Court emphasized that sufficient cause for condoning appeal delays must include diligence and bona fides; ignorance of law and financial hardship alone are insufficient grounds for delay beyond t....
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
