Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Court Disregard of Late Filing of Written Submissions - Main Points and Insights:
Extension of Time for Filing Written Statements:
For example, in ["Shantanu Prakash vs Doris Chug Gim Lian - Delhi"], the court refused to condone a delay of 193 days in filing a written statement, emphasizing that delay of 193 days in filing of the written statement was not condoned, indicating courts' strict stance on substantial delays.
Principles for Condonation of Delay:
In ["Shantanu Prakash vs Doris Chug Gim Lian - Delhi"], it was noted that delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay, and failure to meet these parameters results in refusal.
Disregard of Substantial Late Filing:
In ["RANJITH B MOOLYA vs REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER - Kerala"], the court observed that filing an appeal in tax matters may require legal and technical assistance, but even then, delay cannot be condoned without proper cause.
Judicial Precedents on Late Filing:
In ["MAYA Vs RAJESH & ORS. - Delhi"], the court emphasized that no benefit accrues to a litigant by lodging an appeal late, and delay in filing the appeal or written submissions can lead to outright rejection if not sufficiently explained.
Impact of Substantial Delay on Substantive Justice:
Analysis and Conclusion:Courts generally do not favor disregarding substantial late filings of written submissions unless there are compelling reasons. The prevailing judicial approach is to strictly enforce time limits, with exceptions only when genuine cause and substantial justice are demonstrated. The cases ["Shantanu Prakash vs Doris Chug Gim Lian - Delhi"], ["MAYA Vs RAJESH & ORS. - Delhi"], and ["BHASKAR REDDY NANDYALA HANUMANTHA REDDYGARI BANGALORE vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) BENGALURU - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal"] exemplify that courts are cautious in condoning delays beyond the statutory or rule-based limits, especially when delays are substantial and unjustified. Therefore, while courts have the discretion to extend deadlines, disregarding substantial late filings remains a rare exception, heavily dependent on the reasons provided and the impact on justice.
References:- ["MAYA Vs RAJESH & ORS. - Delhi"]- ["BHASKAR REDDY NANDYALA HANUMANTHA REDDYGARI BANGALORE vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) BENGALURU - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal"]- ["Shantanu Prakash vs Doris Chug Gim Lian - Delhi"]- ["RANJITH B MOOLYA vs REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER - Kerala"]- ["IND_Delhi_CS(OS)-231_2019"]
In litigation, timelines are sacred—or so it seems. But what happens when a party files written submissions substantially late? Can the court simply ignore the delay? Many litigants ask: I need case precedents where court disregard substantial late filing of Written Submission. The answer lies in judicial discretion, balancing procedural rules against the overriding interest of justice, particularly when no prejudice is shown to the opposing party.
This blog post dives into key Malaysian precedents and draws parallels from other jurisdictions, highlighting when courts exercise flexibility. While procedural lapses are generally disfavored, courts often prioritize substantive justice. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Courts may disregard substantial late filings of written submissions if there's no prejudice to the opposing party and the overriding interest of justice favors acceptance. Late submissions don't automatically derail proceedings if they don't hinder fair trial conduct or cause substantive harm. MKP BUILDERS SDN BHD vs PC GEOTECHNIC SDN BHD (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 1161GLOBAL MARITIME VENTURES BERHAD & ANOR vs IZLIN ISMAIL & ORS (ENCLS 140 173 179 181 182 & 187) - 2025 MarsdenLR 3342
Key points include:- Procedural flexibility is granted when no prejudice is demonstrated. MKP BUILDERS SDN BHD vs PC GEOTECHNIC SDN BHD (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 1161GLOBAL MARITIME VENTURES BERHAD & ANOR vs IZLIN ISMAIL & ORS (ENCLS 140 173 179 181 182 & 187) - 2025 MarsdenLR 3342- Justice trumps strict compliance absent prejudice. MKP BUILDERS SDN BHD vs PC GEOTECHNIC SDN BHD (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 1161GLOBAL MARITIME VENTURES BERHAD & ANOR vs IZLIN ISMAIL & ORS (ENCLS 140 173 179 181 182 & 187) - 2025 MarsdenLR 3342- Discretion applies if delay isn't overly disruptive to rights. MKP BUILDERS SDN BHD vs PC GEOTECHNIC SDN BHD (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 1161GLOBAL MARITIME VENTURES BERHAD & ANOR vs IZLIN ISMAIL & ORS (ENCLS 140 173 179 181 182 & 187) - 2025 MarsdenLR 3342
In this case, the court addressed late service of written submissions. It held that procedural irregularities could be overlooked:
there is no prejudice to the opposing party (Z). Z may apply for leave of Court to reply to the written submission in question and if the Court adjourns the proceedings, Z may even apply for 'costs thrown away' against the party who is guilty of late service of the written submission.
The court refused to expunge the submission, noting:
In this case, if PCG was prejudiced in any manner by the late service of MKP's 2 Written Submission, PCG could have easily applied for leave of Court to adjourn the hearing... The Court cannot expunge or disregard MKP's 2 Written Submission.
This illustrates courts' willingness to accept late filings when remedies like adjournments or costs mitigate any issues.
Similarly, here the court stressed:
there is no prejudice to the opposing party (Z). Z may apply for leave of Court to reply to the written submission in question and if the Court adjourns the proceedings, Z may even apply for 'costs thrown away' against the party who is guilty of late service.
Even after an appeal withdrawal, it affirmed:
In addition to the reasons explained in the above para 21, the 3rd Defendant has not been prejudiced in any manner by the late service of the Plaintiffs' Written Submission.
These cases underscore that without prejudice or trial disruption, late submissions stand.
Flexibility isn't absolute. If prejudice is shown, or delay is substantial and unjustified, courts may reject filings. For instance, in RAINBOW WELLPACK SDN BHD LWN. YONG SU LING (LAMP 33 & 39) - 2025 MarsdenLR 2203 and NG CHWEE PING vs LOH SIU YIN - 2025 MarsdenLR 3706, non-compliance led to striking out submissions. Courts remain cautious to protect trial integrity.
Similar principles echo globally, especially in condonation of delay for appeals or written statements, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities.
In an Indian case Bharti Airtel Ltd. VS Velshibhai Arjanbhai Patel Decd - 2024 Supreme(Guj) 1948, the court under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Limitation Act emphasized liberal approaches:
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.
It restored a condonation application, favoring merits over dismissal.
Likewise, Meenachil Taluk Cooperative Employees Cooperative Society Limited VS Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 505 (Income Tax Act context) held rejection on technical grounds violates natural justice:
The reason advanced by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the appeal was sufficient, and the delay should have been condoned.
The court directed merits consideration, aligning with no-prejudice logic.
In Raj Television Network Ltd. VS Sony Music Entertainment - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 1375, for written statements under CPC Order VIII, the court took a liberal view:
Applications for condonation of delay in filing written statement should be dealt with on a case to case basis... Court take a liberal view and hold that the written statement can be taken on file.
It cautioned against precedent but highlighted case-specific discretion.
HARBHAJAN SINGH BAJWA VS JASDEV SINGH - 2014 Supreme(P&H) 1715 affirmed Order 8 Rule 1 CPC as directory:
The provisions under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. are not mandatory but directory in nature.
These reinforce that procedural rules yield to justice absent harm.
Other cases like PRABHA SHANKAR TIWARI vs THE UNION OF INDIA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 12872 note substantial compliance suffices unless prejudice shown, while K. P. Annadurai VS Kalaiselvi - 2013 Supreme(Mad) 1387 ties to substantial questions of law but stresses proof burdens.
To navigate late filings:- File promptly: Adhere to timelines to avoid risks.- Demonstrate no prejudice: If late, show opposing party suffers no harm and seek court leave.- Request remedies: Propose adjournments or costs thrown away.- Argue justice: Emphasize overriding interests, citing precedents like MKP BUILDERS SDN BHD vs PC GEOTECHNIC SDN BHD (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 1161GLOBAL MARITIME VENTURES BERHAD & ANOR vs IZLIN ISMAIL & ORS (ENCLS 140 173 179 181 182 & 187) - 2025 MarsdenLR 3342.- Prepare alternatives: In delays due to counsel (as in Raj Television Network Ltd. VS Sony Music Entertainment - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 1375), document reasons.
Courts assess fairness holistically.
Precedents show courts often disregard substantial late written submissions when no prejudice exists and justice demands it. Malaysian cases MKP BUILDERS SDN BHD vs PC GEOTECHNIC SDN BHD (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 1161 and GLOBAL MARITIME VENTURES BERHAD & ANOR vs IZLIN ISMAIL & ORS (ENCLS 140 173 179 181 182 & 187) - 2025 MarsdenLR 3342 lead, bolstered by global echoes on condonation favoring merits.
Key Takeaways:- No prejudice = high chance of acceptance.- Justice overrides procedure.- Case-specific; prove your grounds.
Stay proactive in filings. For tailored advice, engage legal experts. References are from provided documents only.
*
#LateFilingCases #CourtPrecedents #LegalJustice
to this court even today, to disregard Pushpa. ... Extension of time for filing written statement. ... Late Shri Vasudeva. 4. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the father of the Plaintiff Late Shri Vasudeva died intestate on 02.10.2020, leaving behind Plaintiff and the Defendants as the only Legal Heirs. ... In view of this amendment, the Delhi High Court (Original Side Rules) give the same time schedule for filing a wr....
For the purpose of convenience, the principles laid down by the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder: “(1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. ... 5.2 In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471), Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down six principles. ... CIT(A) further observed that legal precedents underscore the critical nature of adequately substantiated affidavits in cases of delayed filings. For instance, in the case#HL....
4.2 On filing of the suit, notice was issued, which was eventually served upon the petitioner and in pursuance thereto, the petitioner had appeared through advocate and filed his written statement. ... Supreme Court time and again, while considering the plea for condonation of delay: [1] Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. ... In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any....
Referring to various decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals, the High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the 1st respondent has held as under: “5.8 In view of the foregoing discussion, factual matrix and the judicial precedents, I find that no case has been made ... The judicial precedents referred to in Ext. P3 order appear to have been misapplied by the 1st respondent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. ... is not satisfied with the cause....
written communication in every case and judicial precedents have clarified that substantial compliance with these requirements is sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. ... Keyal submits that neither Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India nor Section 50(1) CrPC, prescribes a specific form or insists upon written communication in every case and judicial precedents have clarified that substantial compliance with these requirements is s....
'Substantial questions of law' means not only substantial questions of law of general importance, but also substantial question of law arising in a case as between the parties ......any question of law which affects the final decision in a case is a substantial question of law as between the parties. ... A mere running of the eye over the above precedents would connote and denote, exemplify and demonstrate that unless there is any substantial questio....
the filing of the same with the Registry of Companies. ... submission of accounts. ... As Mr Anantham rightly said in his written submission, The shareholders have naturally suffered as a result of this mismanagement of the financial affairs of the first respondent by the respondents. ... Further the obsolete machinery and equipment of the 1st respondent need to be replaced. ... The respondents attempted to explain the delay but whatever the reasons for the delay this was a clear case....
submission of accounts. ... As Mr Anantham rightly said in his written submission, The shareholders have naturally suffered as a result of this mismanagement of the financial affairs of the first respondent by the respondents. ... On 4 April 1988 the High Court granted the order restoring MMF to the register of companies and required the respondents to produce the accounts of MMF and to comply with s 165 of the Companies Act with regard to the filing of the same with the Registry of Companies. ... Furth....
submission of accounts. ... Anantham rightly said in his written submission, The shareholders have naturally suffered as a result of this mismanagement of the financial affairs of the first respondent by the respondents. ... On 4 April 1988 the High Court granted the order restoring MMF to the register of companies and required the respondents to produce the accounts of MMF and to comply with s. 165 of the Companies Act with regard to the filing of the same with the Registry of Companies. Mr. ... Furt....
submission of accounts. ... Anantham rightly said in his written submission, The shareholders have naturally suffered as a result of this mismanagement of the financial affairs of the first respondent by the respondents. ... On 4 April 1988 the High Court granted the order restoring MMF to the register of companies and required the respondents to produce the accounts of MMF and to comply with s. 165 of the Companies Act with regard to the filing of the same with the Registry of Companies. Mr. ... Furt....
This is not a case where anything substantial has been brought on record to disregard the evidence of PW 5."
Applications for condonation of delay in filing written statement should be dealt with on a case to case basis. Therefore, this order/view shall not be cited as a precedent in other matters seeking condonation of delay in filing written statement.
This is not a case where anything substantial has been brought on record to disregard the evidence of PW 1 and 3.
No illegality has been committed by the Court below while passing the impugned order and there is no merit in the revision petition and the same should be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent further argued that the plaintiff filed so many applications in the case and he himself has delayed the proceedings and due to filing of those applications the written statement could not be filed in time and there are reasonable grounds for filing the written statement late and the provisions are not mandatory in nature and the Court in the facts and circumstances has rightly passed ....
One more aspect that could be found to be clinching evidence against the accused is evident from the testimony of witnesses along with the evidence of Investigating Officer. This is not a case where anything substantial has been brought on record to disregard the evidence of PW 5”.
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
