Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J
Mita Saha – Appellant
Versus
The Chairman, GD Birla Memorial, Foundation Birla – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
Mr. Ajitesh Pandey Mr. Zubeen Pandey …for the petitioner Mr. Kaushik Banerjee Ms. Rashmita Sen Ms. Sharmistha Saha …for the opposite parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the workman and is directed against an order being no. 6 dated April 22, 2025 passed by the learned Chief Judge at the Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in W.B.S.E.A. 3 of 2025. By the order impugned the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act , stood allowed.
The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner failed to explain the delay satisfactorily in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act . He further submits that the length of delay is not material but what is material is the sufficiency of the cause.
Heard learned advocates for the opposite parties on such submission.
After going through the order
Court's discretion to evaluate delay explanation under Limitation Act upheld, emphasizing sufficiency of cause over mere length of delay.
The Act of 2016 does not provide for the applicability of any provision of the Limitation Act, including Sec. 5, which would empower Respondent No.3 to condone the delay in filing the Appeal.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked for condoning delays in applications under Section 7(2) of the W.B.P.T. Act, as compliance with specific statutory requirements is mandatory.
Setting aside or refusing to set aside arbitral award under Section 34 of Act and an appeal lies where an order is passed under Section 34.
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.
If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party, the valuable right that has accrued to it in law.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of diligence in exercising legal rights and the need for a reasonable explanation for delay in seeking remedy within the statutory period.
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
Listen Article