Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, L.S. PIRZADA
Harendra Bhanushankar Pandya – Appellant
Versus
Punjab And Sind Bank – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction under letters patent appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. delay and natural justice principles. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. importance of hearing in justice. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. disposition of appeal confirmation. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. order for opportunity of hearing. (Para 12) |
ORDER :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. B.J.Trivedi for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Anip Gandhi for respondent No.1.
2. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, the appellant has challenged the order dated 24.07.2015 passed in Civil Application No. 50/2015 in Misc. Civil Application (Stamp) No.3439/2014 in Special Civil Application No. 3307/1991.
3. By order dated 24.07.2015, learned Single Judge has condoned the delay in filing Misc. Civil Application for review of a Judgement dated 07.10.2014 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 3307/1991.
4. Brief facts recorded by the learned Single Judge are reproduced for ready reference as under:
“3.1 The aforesaid SCA was listed before this Court on 07/10/2014 and after hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, respondent being absent, the judgment was pronounced allowing the petition and directing the respondent
The Court emphasized the importance of natural justice, asserting that a party must be afforded a hearing before any decisions that impact their rights are made, especially in the context of ex-parte....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for convincing and acceptable reasons for condonation of delay, emphasizing that the length of delay is not material, but the reasons stat....
The sufficiency of the cause for condoning delay is paramount, and a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' is justified when no mala fides are present, despite the length of the delay.
Point of law : Delay which has occurred at two (2) stages as noticed hereinabove, has not been explained and there is no cause muchless sufficient cause if shown.
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 emphasized the accountability of State-Authorities for inaction and held that the impersonal machinery of the government cannot be used as a ground for condonation of delay.
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
