Back
A. G. URAIZEE
Laxmibai Wd/o Chhotulal Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. Saket A. Waghela, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Sudhir M. Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 248 days which has occurred in preferring an appeal to assail the impugned judgment and order of the Railway Claims Tribunal.
3. Mr. Waghela, learned advocate for the applicant submits that delay in preferring an appeal has merely occurred owing to the fact that the deceased husband of the applicant the main bread winner of the family. It is his further submission that deceased husband as well as the appellant were doing labour work for their survival. Therefore, the death of husband, applicant had gone to her home town and had to a shoulder the responsibility of maintaining a family. He further submits that the learned advocate who was representing the applicant before the tribunal tried to contact her, however as she has not traceable his efforts went in vain. He further submits that the applicant had also suffer some illness as a result she could not prefer the appeal in prescribed limitation. He, therefore, urges that the delay which has occurred in assailing the i
The court may exercise the discretion of power to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act based on sufficient grounds such as loss, responsibilities, and illness.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the liberal interpretation of compensation provisions under the Act and the condonation of delay in filing appeals based on the poor economic st....
Inordinate delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause explaining each day's delay, substantiated by evidence; vague, unsubstantiated plea of family illness fails against rigorous limitation la....
Condonation of delay granted based on sufficient cause including financial hardship and COVID exclusion, prioritizing justice over length.
The court emphasizes that the burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the appellant, and mere assertions of negligence by counsel are insufficient to warrant condonation.
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
