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…!
The courts also noted that explanations for delays during the pandemic, such as inability to contact counsel, office closures, or health issues, are valid and should be accepted if properly supported ["Santosh Sanvle v. Union of India - Madhya Pradesh"] ["Prem Chand vs Council Of Scientific & Industrial Research - Central Administrative Tribunal"] ["KUNAL SINGH Vs State - Allahabad"] ["MRS. JAYA P. VISHWANATHAN vs MRS. GRETTA SERRAO - Karnataka"] ["S.I. Data Ram vs Commissioner of Police (Delhi Police) - Central Administrative Tribunal"] ["INDHC_UPHC010705192020"] ["Sh. Nitin Singhal Matta Garg & Co. Chartered Accountants vs ITO U.S. Nagar Ward-2(2)(4) - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal"] ["Prateek Jain VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"] ["INDHC_UPHC010705192020"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Santosh Sanvle v. Union of India - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Prem Chand vs Council Of Scientific & Industrial Research - Central Administrative Tribunal"]- ["Gummala Atchiyamma vs Gummala Chinmayi (died) - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["KUNAL SINGH Vs State - Allahabad"]- ["MRS. JAYA P. VISHWANATHAN vs MRS. GRETTA SERRAO - Karnataka"]- ["S.I. Data Ram vs Commissioner of Police (Delhi Police) - Central Administrative Tribunal"]- ["Regional Passport Officer, Jaipur, (Raj. ) VS Manpreet Singh S/o. Shri Sukhdev Singh - Rajasthan"]- ["INDHC_UPHC010705192020"]- ["Sh. Nitin Singhal Matta Garg & Co. Chartered Accountants vs ITO U.S. Nagar Ward-2(2)(4) - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal"]- ["Prateek Jain VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["INDHC_UPHC010705192020"]- ["Land Acquisition Officer Sardar Sarovar Project Barwani vs Rupaji - Madhya Pradesh"]
The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 brought unprecedented challenges, including widespread court closures and disrupted judicial functioning. Many litigants faced difficulties in filing cases, appeals, or responses on time. A common question arises: due to the pandemic of corona during the year 2020, the courts are not functioned properly and what is the remedy for delay filing? This blog explores the judicial responses, key remedies, and practical guidance, drawing from Supreme Court directives and various case laws. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
In 2020, lockdowns, restricted movements, and court shutdowns created havoc for timely filings. Courts across India, from district levels to the Supreme Court, acknowledged these disruptions as 'extraordinary circumstances' beyond litigants' control. The judiciary responded proactively through suo motu actions, ensuring access to justice wasn't denied due to the pandemic. These measures typically involved excluding the lockdown period from limitation calculations and allowing condonation of delays where pandemic-related reasons were shown. Aditya Khaitan VS IL and FS Financial Services Limited - 2023 7 Supreme 1
As one court noted, It's a notorious fact that in the year 2020 especially in May, 2020, the Corona Pandemic was at its peak... there was lock down, on account of which there was delay in filing the appeal. Dilip Agrawal vs Manoj - 2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 7915
The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to issue binding orders extending limitation periods. These suo motu orders, starting from 23.03.2020 and continuing through 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021, and 23.09.2021, explicitly excluded time from 15.03.2020 onwards from all limitation calculations for judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. PRAKASH CORPORATES VS DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED - 2022 4 Supreme 291Aditya Khaitan VS IL and FS Financial Services Limited - 2023 7 Supreme 1
High Courts followed suit, recognizing the pandemic's disruptive effect. For instance, courts condoned delays by considering factors like staff working from home and restricted access. In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation VS . - 2022 1 Supreme 33
Even beyond automatic exclusions, courts have liberally condoned delays linked to COVID-19 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or equivalent provisions. The principle is clear: pandemic-related hurdles constitute 'sufficient cause.'
Courts stressed: The reasons for delay related to the pandemic are sufficient cause, and the delays should be condoned to uphold the cause of justice. In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation VS . - 2022 1 Supreme 33Government of NCT of Delhi vs Prem Singh - Delhi (2021)
These remedies extend beyond traditional litigation:
Under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, authorities must consider Supreme Court directives when condoning delays in return filings. In cases involving agricultural cooperatives for AY 2021-2022, rejections were set aside for ignoring pandemic extensions. The Supreme Court's directives on limitation during the COVID-19 pandemic are binding and must be considered in tax return filings. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society VS Union of India - 2024 Supreme(AP) 913Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society VS Union of India - 2024 Supreme(AP) 592
Pandemic delays didn't invalidate awards if parties showed diligence. In arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, claims filed excluding lockdown periods were upheld, even ex parte due to non-participation. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited VS Chaurasiya Enterprises - 2024 Supreme(All) 1307
Delays in revisions due to post-March 2020 court closures were noted, with registrations restored after quashing improper cancellations. Momaipura Mahila Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Limited VS Additional Registrar (Appeals) - 2022 Supreme(Guj) 1185
Authorities condoned renewal delays attributed to COVID-affected departmental functioning and portal errors. Suresh Singh VS State of Jharkhand - 2022 Supreme(Jhk) 642
However, not all delays qualify. In NDPS bail matters, pandemic delays didn't override stringent bail conditions for serious offenses. Dipti Purty @ Sunita VS State - 2021 Supreme(Del) 2439
While liberal, these measures aren't blanket approvals:- Delays must be directly linked to pandemic disruptions; negligence or unrelated reasons won't suffice. Aditya Khaitan VS IL and FS Financial Services Limited - 2023 7 Supreme 1M. P. STEEL CORPORATION VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE - 2015 4 Supreme 1- Orders are temporary, resuming normal rules post-pandemic. PRAKASH CORPORATES VS DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED - 2022 4 Supreme 291- No automatic condonation beyond excluded periods without specific justification. PRAKASH CORPORATES VS DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED - 2022 4 Supreme 291
Courts examine each case on facts, balancing litigants' rights with those of opponents.
To leverage these remedies:1. Invoke Specific Orders: Reference Supreme Court suo motu orders (e.g., dated 23.03.2020) in applications.2. Document Pandemic Impact: Provide affidavits detailing lockdowns, court closures, or personal hardships like Corona Pandemic was at its peak during that time and there was lock down. Dilip Agrawal vs Manoj - 2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 79153. File Condonation Applications: Promptly seek relief under relevant limitation laws, emphasizing 'sufficient cause.'4. Adopt Liberal Approach: Courts urge a justice-focused lens to preserve access. Aditya Khaitan VS IL and FS Financial Services Limited - 2023 7 Supreme 1
The COVID-19 pandemic prompted robust judicial safeguards against filing delays, primarily through limitation exclusions and condonation. Supreme Court orders under Article 142 remain pivotal, applicable across civil, tax, arbitration, and more. By demonstrating pandemic linkages, litigants can typically secure relief, prioritizing justice over technicalities. Always tailor applications to facts and seek professional advice to navigate these nuances effectively.
Disclaimer: This post summarizes general judicial trends as of available precedents. Laws and interpretations evolve; this does not constitute legal advice.
#COVIDCourtDelays, #LimitationExtension, #LegalRemedies
Heard on I.A No. 8071 of 2020, an application for condonation of delay. ... The impugned award was passed on 13.08.2019, whereas the appeal has been filed on 23.12.2020. This appeal is filed with a delay of 1 year 4 months. ... That thereafter due to said pandemic disease Covid - 19 spread in India and lock down was declared by the Government of India on 23.03.2020. Due to the said lock down, the transportation was unavailable and ....
Due to Corona pandemic and economic hardship due to jobless applicant was unable to file OA. Hence, delay condonation application. 4. Respondents by filing the preliminary objection have, inter alia, stated that OA is barred by limitation. ... In reply against the preliminary objection, applicant has further stated that Writ Petition No.2684 (SS) of 2001 was decided on 20.01.2020. Delay is due to delay in d....
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2 submitted that the reason stated for their delay i.e., the petitioners could not file the written statement in time is a false statement and further reason stated for non filing of the written statement is due to ‘Corona’ pandemic ... It is not that in each and every case despite the sufficient cause is not shown and the delay is not #HL_....
It's a notorious fact that in the year 2020 especially in May, 2020, the Corona Pandemic was at its peak. ... Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Corona Pandemic was at its peak during that time and there was lock down, on account of which there was delay in filing the appeal supported by the application for condonation of delay. ... All over, the Courts had relaxed t....
and/or State) due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. ... The short point that arises in all the petitions is that whether the authority was right in rejecting the applications preferred under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act seeking to condone the delay in filing the returns for the assessment year 2021-2022. ... The applications by the assesse were preferred invoking the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section 2 of section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, praying to condone the delay#HL_EN....
and/or State) due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. ... The short point that arises in all the petitions is that whether the authority was right in rejecting the applications preferred under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act seeking to condone the delay in filing the returns for the assessment year 2021-2022. ... The applications by the assesse were preferred invoking the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section 2 of section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, praying to condone the delay#HL_EN....
The COVID 19 pandemic surged in the year 2020 and again in 2021. ... Learned counsel for the applicant argued that due to COVID 19 pandemic the applicant could not approach the this Court for filing of revision and that the delay in filing the revision is not deliberate or intentional. ... Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that COVID-19 erupted in month of March 2020 and ....
has not been explained properly and only stated that suffering from back ache and also due to corona, he could not meet the counsel. ... When the order was passed in the year 2013 itself and covid-19 pandemic affected in the year 2020 all over the nation and there is no any explanation from 2013 to 2020 and even after corona period also no steps was taken to challenge the same. ... In support of t....
(ii) That due to Covid-19 pandemic which broke out in 2020 and lasted upto March, 2022, the applicant could not approach the Tribunal 5. ... In the present MAs, the ground for seeking condonation of delay is the COVID-19 pandemic which broke out in the year 2020 and lasted upto March, 2022, however, admittedly, the applicant has challenged Appellate order of penalty dated 30.08.2017 which is approximately 2 ½ years prior to the break out ... The Hon....
It was also submitted that as during the year 2020 for most of the period the Courts have not functioned properly due to impact of Covid-19 Pandemic, thus, delay in trial cannot certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal far. ... . - 18063 of 2020 span style="font-family:
Therefore, the parties should take further action considering the condition of corona till the court opens. Signature of Arbitrator (illegible) 24.03.20 24.06.2020 (signature) illegible 24/6 (signature) illegible 11/07/20 The petitioner has filed an application and a Claim Petition to withdraw the statement which was filed earlier while not press it. From the perusal of file, it is clear that petitioner has presented his claim through an affidavit. Since, it is not in accordance with law to make amendment in an affidavit, therefore, ame....
The petitioner thereafter filed Special Civil Application No.8842/2020 challenging the order dated 24.07.2019 passed by respondent no.1 - Additional Registrar which was partly allowed by order dated 6.08.2020 by this Court suspending the stay order till the hearing of the appeal by respondent no.1. The petitioner therefore, approached the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Agriculture and Cooperation Department, State of Gujarat, by preferring Revision Application No.42/2019 which could not be listed for hearing due to corona pandemic after March 2020.
The delay in filing application for renewal of the permit issued to him for the said route was also attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic during the intervening period particularly the year 2020-21 due to which the normal functioning of Transport Department was affected. 5 could not apply for renewal of the same due to some technical error in the permit portal of the Transport Department. 7 that the ground taken by the petitioner in not amending the allotted time table for the said route stating that the permit of the respondent no.
3. The Zoo was not open for the public due to the Corona Pandemic.
As far as the question of delay is concerned, no doubt there is a delay but one cannot lose sight of the fact that for the last two years all the proceedings mostly the evidence has taken a back seat due to the Corona Pandemic and looking into the serious allegations, the petitioner cannot be given any benefit of the said delay.
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
