Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, RAI CHATTOPADHYAY
Ashmi Engineering & Advisory Services Pvt Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against a single judge order regarding limitation. (Para 2) |
| 2. argument regarding the need for condonation of delay. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court discussion on authority's discretion concerning delay. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13) |
| 4. final ruling on the legality of the single judge's decision. (Para 14) |
| 5. conclusion of dismissing the appeal. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The present appeal is directed against an order of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated February 27, 2025, in writ petition No. WPA 30952 of 2024.
3. Therefore, before the respondent No. 2/Referee the appellants filed their application dated August 6, 2024, wherein the issue of limitation was raised by the present appellants. The appellants are aggrieved that the respondent No. 2/Referee has failed to take into consideration the issue of limitation in filing the application by the respondent No. 3. Learned Advocate, Mr. Paul appearing for the appellants has strenuously argued that the statute has specifically provided for the subject matter of limitation in case of filing an application under the provisions of West Bengal Shops and Establishment Act, 1963, before the competent statutory Authority. He has argued
The absence of a formal application for condoning delay does not impede the statutory authority's discretion to admit belated applications if a sufficient cause is shown.
The claim for unpaid wages was barred by limitation, reinforcing the principle that courts must examine jurisdictional issues of limitation irrespective of whether they were raised by the parties.
The court emphasized a liberal approach in condoning delays in filing written statements to ensure justice is served, rather than adhering strictly to technicalities.
The court ruled that mere negligence and lack of diligence do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing an appeal under the Limitation Act.
A party seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must demonstrate sufficient cause; mere invocation of a liberal approach unaccompanied by due diligence will not suffice.
The court ruled that strict compliance with statutory time limits is mandatory, and substantial justice cannot override clear legislative provisions regarding delay in filing appeals.
The court determined that administrative negligence is insufficient to warrant the condonation of significant delays in legal proceedings; strict adherence to limitation laws is paramount.
The court emphasized that applications for condonation of delay should be decided on merits, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities, especially when the delay is not due to negligence.
The court reaffirmed that a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay is essential to ensure substantial justice, allowing a non-pedantic approach to procedural matters.
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
