Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KAMAL KHATA
Nirlon Limited – Appellant
Versus
Janhavi Sitaram Desai – Respondent
JUDGEMENT :
KAMAL KHATA, J.
1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenges the Order dated 8th April 2024 ("impugned Order") passed by the Additional Commissioner Konkan Division ("Respondent No. 4") in Appeal /DESK/LND/59/2023 ("the Appeal") along with the Application for condonation of delay ("delay application") whereby the Respondent No. 4 condoned delay of 13 years and 07 months and 21 days in filing an Appeal.
Brief Facts
2. Nanubhai Industries Private Limited (Nirlon Limited) – the Petitioner originally acquired the following piece and parcel of lands (“said property”) by virtue of a Sanad document / Agreement dated 18th August 1962.
| Village Survey No. Hissa No. | Area | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acres | Gunthas | Ares | |||
| Goregaon | 12 Part | 1 | 25 | 8 | |
| 13 | 4 | 24 | 0 | ||
| 14 | 1 Part | 5 | 12 | 0 | |
| Pahadi | 130 | 2 | 0 | 23 | 0 |
| 139 | 2 | 0 | 29 | 8 | |
| 140 | 1 Part | 7 | 14 | 0 | |
| 141 Part | 7 | 3 | 0 | ||
| 142 Part | 8 | 4 | 0 | ||
As and by way of abundant precaution, by a registered indenture dated 22nd September 1964 the Petitioner obtained confirmation from the owner Sitaram Narayan Desai (“Sitaram”), the father of Respondent No.1 for valuable consideration.
3. Thereafter, by a registered indenture dated 31st March 1965, the Petitioner purchased from the Respondent no.1’s father Sitaram Narayan Desai the following additiona
Failure to record reasons for condoning inordinate unexplained delay violates natural justice; constitutes jurisdictional error warranting writ interference under Article 226 despite alternate remedy....
Application for mutation – Condonation of delay - The term "sufficient cause" is to receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice, when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is a....
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in appeals, advocating a liberal approach while ensuring timely legal action.
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 emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in appeals, advocating a liberal approach while also requiring satisfactory explanations for excessive delays.
The court emphasized that delay in filing a restoration application undermines the right to challenge prior orders, reinforcing the principle that the law of limitation must be strictly applied.
The court ruled that a liberal approach cannot override statutory limitations, emphasizing the need for a satisfactory explanation for delays in filing appeals.
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
