Back
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Royal Trading Cooperative Housing Service Society Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Narendra Rajaram Gupta – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.
1. The petitioner herein is a Co-operative Housing Society in which the respondent owns 11 shops and the amount of maintenance is not paid by the respondent. In view thereof, the petitioner herein has filed Summary Lavad Case No.14 of 2012 under Section 99(4) of the Act. Upon issuance of summons on 07.03.2012 and 16.03.2012, the appearance of learned advocate appearing for the respondent came to be filed. The respondent did not file any application for leave to defend as contemplated under Section 99(4) of the Act read with Rule 41A of the Rules of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Rules, 1965 (for short ‘the Rules) and preferred an application to decide the preliminary issue with respect to jurisdiction. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Board of Nominees, against which a Revision Application No.95 of 2015 came to be filed before the Tribunal which also came to be rejected by order dated 18.01.2018.
1.1 The respondent herein filed an application seeking leave to defend in Summary Lavad Case No.14 of 2012 on 06.07.2017 i.e. after almost 5 years, on appearing before the Board of Nominees. The said application came to be filed w
The court established that excessive delay in seeking leave to defend in co-operative society disputes cannot be condoned without sufficient justification.
The court affirmed that members must challenge resolutions to preserve their rights, and the Registrar's approval of amendments is valid if compliant with the Act and Rules.
Where orders are passed condoning the delay, they are discretionary orders and ought not to be interfered with.
The delay in proceedings cannot be dismissed when there are prima facie merits, and leniency should be applied in construing delays.
The State must provide satisfactory reasons for delay in filing petitions; bureaucratic inefficiency is no excuse. Condonation of delay should not undermine the principles of timely justice.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in appeals, advocating a liberal approach while ensuring timely legal action.
Delay in review petition condoned under Section 14 Limitation Act, excluding time in bona fide Letters Patent Appeal against Article 227 order dismissed for non-maintainability. Review dismissed for ....
Delay in filing for leave to defend in summary proceedings is not condoned without sufficient cause, particularly where negligence is evident.
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.
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
