IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J., M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ.
State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Yadunandan Singh S/o Late Rajdhani Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
I.A. No. 3538 of 2023 in L.P.A. No. 174 of 2023
1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT ,1963 to condone the delay of 336 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 05.04.2022 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1194 of 2009.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of this application, it is stated that the said order was communicated to the applicant-Department on 29.04.2022; that the respondents made representation on 09.05.2022 and 13.05.2022 enclosing copy of the impugned order which were received on 10.05.2022 and 19.05.2022; matter was then placed before the Under Secretary of the Department on 11.05.2022 and a detailed note was also put up on26.08.2022.
3. This note appears to have been put up almost four months after the copy of the judgment of the learned Single Judge was communicated to the applicant-department and the reason for the delay in putting up the note of four months is not explained.
4. It is next stated in the application filed for condonation of delay that the Under Secretary to the Department, two months later on 26.10.2022 raised a query which was answered by the Se
Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another
Commissioner of Customs Chennai vs. M/s Volex Interconnect (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Pr. Commissioner Central Excise Delhi vs. Design Dialogues India Pvt. Ltd.
Union of India vs. Central Tibetan Schools Administration & Others
Union of India & Others vs. Vishnu Aroma Pouching Private Limited and another
State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. Sabha Narain & others
Union of India Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his Legal Heir
Government departments must adhere to limitation periods; bureaucratic delays do not justify condonation of significant delays in legal proceedings.
The court emphasized that government entities must demonstrate diligence in adhering to the statutory limit for appeal filing and cannot claim special treatment in delay situations without sufficient....
The court ruled that bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing appeals, emphasizing that the law of limitation binds all parties.
The court emphasized the necessity of diligence in filing appeals and rejected bureaucratic inefficiency as a valid excuse for delay in legal proceedings.
The court underscored that delays due to administrative negligence cannot justify condonation in legal proceedings, particularly for state agencies, emphasizing the importance of diligence in adherin....
The court ruled that governmental entities must demonstrate diligence in filing appeals, and bureaucratic delays do not suffice as grounds for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act.
Delay in filing an appeal may not be condoned without a sufficient cause shown, emphasizing the importance of diligence and adherence to limitation periods in judicial proceedings.
Sufficient cause must be demonstrated for condonation of delay; bureaucratic inefficiencies do not qualify as valid reasons under law, as legal deadlines apply equally to all parties.
The law of limitation applies universally, and bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delays in filing appeals.
Both public entities and individuals are strictly bound by the law of limitation, and dilatory conduct without sufficient reason does not merit condonation of delay in legal proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.