IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ, Deepak Roshan, J
The State Of Jharkhand Through The Principal Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department – Appellant
Versus
Vayam Technologies Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
Re: I.A. No. 4288 of 2019 in LPA No. 337 of 2019
1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by the applicants to condone the delay of 276 days in filing this appeal, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
2. In the application filing seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 1036 of 2018 was passed on 28.6.2018, that the information about the judgment was received in the applicants’ department on 12.7.2018, and the concerned Assistant made a note of it and placed the concerned file before the 2nd appellant. It is stated that the copy of the impugned judgment was not available with the department and the 2nd appellant then asked the Section Officer on 20.7.2018 to obtain the copy.
3. It is stated that in the meantime, the judgment was sent to the applicants’ department on 10.9.2018 by the High Court, and after receiving it, the file was placed before the Assistant Section Officer on 12.9.2018 in order that it be placed before the proper authority for taking appropriate decision.
4. It is stated that the file was then sent to the Deputy Director
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-1 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
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.
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....
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 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 emphasized the necessity of diligence in filing appeals and rejected bureaucratic inefficiency as a valid excuse for delay in legal proceedings.
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.
The law of limitation applies universally, and bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delays in filing appeals.
The court ruled that governmental entities must adhere to the same limitation periods as private litigants and cannot mechanically condone delays without sufficient cause.
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.