IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, RAJESH SHANKAR
Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation, through its Chairman, Ranchi – Appellant
Versus
Nirmal Singh, S/o Late Sunder Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
1. I.A. No. 7280 of 2025 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 870 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dated 12.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2835 of 2014.
2. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the delay was caused due to procedural formalities. According to the applicants, they had received information about the judgement of the learned Single Judge and put up the same before the Managing Director of the first applicant. It was then examined by the Managing Director and he decided to seek legal opinion in the matter. The file was then sent to the office of the Advocate General seeking opinion and the Advocate General rendered opinion on 16.05.2024. Thereafter further steps were taken and the appeal was filed on 02.07.2024.
3. It appears that between the date of judgment on 12.04.2022 and the date when the file was sent to the office of the Advocate General, there is a gap of more than 2 years and no steps were taken to secure the opinion of the Advocate General in order to ensure that the appeal is filed within the perio
Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited and another
Commissioner of Customs Chennai v. M/s Volex Interconnect (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Pr. Commissioner Central Excise Delhi-1 v. Design Dialogues India Pvt. Ltd.
Union of India v. Central Tibetan Schools Administration & Others
Union of India & Others v. Vishnu Aroma Pouching Private Limited and another
State of Uttar Pradesh & Others v. Sabha Narain & others
Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his legal heir
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 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....
Government departments must adhere to limitation periods; bureaucratic delays do not justify condonation of significant delays in legal proceedings.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 court emphasized the necessity of diligence in filing appeals and rejected bureaucratic inefficiency as a valid excuse for delay in legal proceedings.
The law of limitation applies universally, and bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delays in filing appeals.
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.