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…!
Delay Rejection Due to Insufficient Cause - The courts consistently held that the explanation furnished by the petitioner for delay must be a sufficient cause to be condoned. Many judgments emphasized that mere lapse or negligence, without a bona fide or acceptable reason, cannot justify condoning inordinate delays. For example, in ["Nayum Ansari, son of Late Ali Akbar Ansari and Late Jahida Khatoon VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], the court rejected delay condonation applications where the appellant's reasons, such as medical treatment or lack of contact with counsel, were deemed inadequate or not sufficiently substantiated.
Medical and Personal Circumstances Not Always Sufficient - Courts have acknowledged that medical issues or personal hardships may be considered, but only if properly supported by medical certificates and convincingly explained. In ["Chando Ram, son of Late Doman Ram VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], the court observed that the explanation which has been furnished by the appellant in the delay condonation application, cannot be said to be a sufficient cause, especially when the delay was substantial (e.g., 687 days). Similarly, in ["Krishana Bhuiya son of Late Munshi Bhuiyan VS Central Coalfields Limited - Jharkhand"], a delay of 811 days was not condoned despite explanations related to health issues, indicating courts require more than just personal hardship.
Length of Delay Not the Sole Criterion - The courts clarified that the length of delay is not the decisive factor; rather, the acceptability of the explanation is paramount. For instance, in ["Krishana Bhuiya son of Late Munshi Bhuiyan VS Central Coalfields Limited - Jharkhand"], the court stated, Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is only a criteria.
Sufficient Cause Must Be Bona Fide and Genuinely Explained - The courts stressed that the cause must be bona fide, genuine, and supported by proper evidence. In ["Moni (Died) 1) Sarasabai vs Nalina - Madras"], the court condoned delay after finding that the petitioner showed sufficient cause, such as reliance on legal advice and procedural lapses, which were adequately explained and supported.
Discretion Exercised Judiciously - The courts emphasized that condonation of delay is a discretionary power that must be exercised judiciously, considering the facts and circumstances of each case. As per ["N PRAKASH Vs M/S CONSOLIDATED CARPET INDUSTRIES LTD - Delhi"], the grounds pleaded in the application seeking condonation of delay fall short of being called good grounds, and the existence of sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time, is a condition precedent.
Main Insight - The latest judgments favor the petitioner when they demonstrate bona fide, substantial, and well-supported reasons for delay, such as medical emergencies or procedural lapses, and when the delay is not excessively long. Conversely, courts tend to reject delay condonation applications when causes are vague, inadequately supported, or motivated by delay tactics.
Analysis and Conclusion:The recent SCC judgments indicate a cautious approach toward condoning delays in execution petitions (EP). The courts favor petitioners who convincingly demonstrate genuine, sufficient causes, supported by appropriate evidence, and exercise their discretion judiciously. In cases like ["Moni (Died) 1) Sarasabai vs Nalina - Madras"], the Court favored condonation, whereas in others such as ["Nayum Ansari, son of Late Ali Akbar Ansari and Late Jahida Khatoon VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], the applications were rejected due to inadequate explanations. Overall, the latest judgments reflect a balanced approach, emphasizing the importance of bona fide causes over mere procedural lapses.
In the fast-paced world of legal proceedings, time is often of the essence. A recent Supreme Court of India judgment has reinforced the strict adherence to statutory limitation periods, particularly in execution petitions (EPs) under the Electricity Act, 2003. The question on many litigants' minds is: Latest SCC judgment favor of petitioner for condone delay in EP. However, the ruling tells a different story—one that emphasizes rigid timelines over leniency.
This blog post dives deep into the latest Supreme Court decision, analyzes its implications, contrasts it with other precedents, and offers practical guidance. Whether you're a legal practitioner, business owner in the energy sector, or simply navigating disputes, understanding these principles can prevent costly dismissals.
The Supreme Court explicitly dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the execution petition. The key finding is that a delay of more than 60 days cannot be condoned when the statute expressly limits the period. Under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and its rules, the limitation for filing such applications is strictly 60 days, and courts lack the power to extend it—even invoking Section 14 or Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963NIRMAL CHAUDHARY VS BISHAMBAR LAL - 1978 0 Supreme(Del) 37.
The Court stated: In view of the express limitation on condonation being 60 days, delay of 71 days cannot be condoned.NIRMAL CHAUDHARY VS BISHAMBAR LAL - 1978 0 Supreme(Del) 37. This 71-day delay in the case sealed the petitioner's fate, underscoring that statutory mandates trump discretionary relief.
The judgment reiterates a fundamental principle: where legislation explicitly caps the condonable period, judicial discretion is curtailed. The Court clarified: When a special statute puts an express limitation of 60 days on filing of appeal, delay of 71 days cannot be condoned under provisions of Limitation Act or Article 142 of the Constitution.NIRMAL CHAUDHARY VS BISHAMBAR LAL - 1978 0 Supreme(Del) 37.
This applies directly to execution petitions linked to Electricity Act disputes, where timely enforcement is critical for utilities and consumers alike.
Arguments invoking Section 5 (sufficient cause for delay) or Section 14 (exclusion of time in certain proceedings) were firmly rejected. The ruling distinguishes special statutes from general limitation laws, prioritizing the former's intent to ensure expeditious resolution NIRMAL CHAUDHARY VS BISHAMBAR LAL - 1978 0 Supreme(Del) 37.
In the facts at hand, the petitioner filed 71 days after the order's communication—11 days over the limit. Despite pleas, the Court held the statute's bar absolute.
While this ruling is stringent, Indian courts often adopt a liberal stance under general provisions. However, it distinguishes cases with express statutory limits.
For instance, earlier judgments like V. Marimuthu VS V. Kalaiselvi - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 446 and V. Sankararaman VS Competent Authority and The Special District Revenue Officer (LA) - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 100 advocate a liberal approach under Section 5, but these lack the Electricity Act's rigid cap NIRMAL CHAUDHARY VS BISHAMBAR LAL - 1978 0 Supreme(Del) 37.
Other precedents highlight variability:- In State of U. P. VS C/M, Seth Jaipuriya School - 2023 Supreme(All) 2452, a 502-day delay in a special leave petition was rejected due to the petitioner's casual manner and lack of plausible grounds. The Court noted: Beyond the period of 15 days, over the period of 30 days, the Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay.- Conversely, Tatina Kasi Visweswara Rao, S/o Raja Rao vs Tatina Sitaratnam Died, Died - 2025 Supreme(AP) 642 condoned a 247-day delay, emphasizing: Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is only a criteria. Sufficient cause like illness justified it.- But vague claims fail, as in Thota Vasudeva Rao VS Pyla Venkata Ramana - 2024 Supreme(AP) 1479, where counsel's alleged negligence lacked particulars: A mere claim of Counsel's neglect does not suffice... litigants maintain responsibility.- Massive delays (e.g., 687 days in Syed Zakir Hussain, son of late Syed Md. Anwar Pandit VS State of Jharkhand - 2024 Supreme(Jhk) 517, 586 days in Suresh Kumar Tiwary VS State of Jharkhand - 2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1340) were dismissed for insufficient cause, stressing diligence.- Government delays face equal scrutiny: 700 days rejected in Dig Up Police Headquaters Allahabad, Under The Control Of S.P. Rampur vs Mithlesh - 2025 Supreme(All) 2359, as the law of limitation applies equally to all litigants, including the State.- Liberal exceptions exist, like 594 days condoned in T. Yuvaraj VS Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2081 for severe injury under beneficial railway laws, given the legislation's protective intent.
These cases illustrate: without a statutory bar, courts weigh sufficient cause, bona fides, and prejudice—but Electricity Act matters brook no such flexibility NIRMAL CHAUDHARY VS BISHAMBAR LAL - 1978 0 Supreme(Del) 37.
To avoid pitfalls:- Track deadlines rigorously: File within 60 days under Electricity Act.- Verify statutory provisions: Don't assume Section 5 applies universally.- Document causes meticulously: If delay occurs within limits, provide affidavits, medical records Tatina Kasi Visweswara Rao, S/o Raja Rao vs Tatina Sitaratnam Died, Died - 2025 Supreme(AP) 642.- Seek alternatives promptly: Explore pre-emptive remedies like interim stays.- Consult specialists: Energy law experts can flag rigid timelines early.
The latest Supreme Court judgment serves as a stark reminder: statutory time limits under special laws like the Electricity Act are sacrosanct. Delays beyond 60 days in EPs are typically fatal, prioritizing certainty over equity NIRMAL CHAUDHARY VS BISHAMBAR LAL - 1978 0 Supreme(Del) 37. While courts may condone delays in other contexts with strong justification, here the law draws a hard line.
Key Takeaways:- Adhere to Section 125's 60-day rule—no exceptions.- Section 5/Limitation Act yields to special statutes.- Diligence trumps all; casual approaches invite dismissal.
This post provides general insights based on public judgments and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for your specific situation.
References:1. NIRMAL CHAUDHARY VS BISHAMBAR LAL - 1978 0 Supreme(Del) 37 – Primary SCC judgment on Electricity Act delay.2. V. Marimuthu VS V. Kalaiselvi - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 446 – Distinguished liberal condonation case.3. Additional sources: State of U. P. VS C/M, Seth Jaipuriya School - 2023 Supreme(All) 2452, Tatina Kasi Visweswara Rao, S/o Raja Rao vs Tatina Sitaratnam Died, Died - 2025 Supreme(AP) 642, Thota Vasudeva Rao VS Pyla Venkata Ramana - 2024 Supreme(AP) 1479, Syed Zakir Hussain, son of late Syed Md. Anwar Pandit VS State of Jharkhand - 2024 Supreme(Jhk) 517, Dig Up Police Headquaters Allahabad, Under The Control Of S.P. Rampur vs Mithlesh - 2025 Supreme(All) 2359, Suresh Kumar Tiwary VS State of Jharkhand - 2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1340, T. Yuvaraj VS Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2081.
#SupremeCourt #CondoneDelay #ElectricityAct
This Court, therefore, is of the view that the explanation which has been furnished by the appellant in the delay condonation application, cannot be said to be a sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay reason being that the impugned judgment was passed on 04.11.2022 and the appeal has been filed ... No.430 of 2022 on 11.09.2023 rejecting the delay condonation application since the appeal was filed after delay of about 128 days without any sufficient cause to condone#....
to condone the delay .” ... The petitioners in their affidavit have alleged that the first petitioner immediately after the pronouncement of judgment by the first appellate Court, applied for certified copies of judgment and decree and obtained the same. ... The case of the petitioners, as canvassed in the petition for condonation of delay, is that after the judgment and decree were passed in A.S.No.24 of 2018 on 30.06.2022, the first petitioner file....
, (2022) 9 SCC 266 , the special leave petition had been filed with a delay of 502 days and the Court found that the petitioner had acted in a casual manner, without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay. ... JUDGMENT C.M. ... Beyond the period of 15 days, over the period of 30 days, the Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay. ... The Supreme Court even observed that "In fact, other than the lethargy and incompetence of the #HL_S....
Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is only a criteria. In the case on hand, the petitioner filed the second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court with a delay of 247 days. ... In the present case, the petitioner/appellant filed this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 247 days in preferring the second appeal. ... The case of the petitioner as per th....
The minimum particulars to substantiate such cause, the name of the Counsel; on what date petitioner approached the Counsel etc., were not stated. The cause was not sufficient to condone the delay. ... I am of the view that it is to be established first that there was mistake of the Counsel, and then that, such mistake furnished sufficient cause to condone delay as there is no general proposition that mistake of Counsel by itself is always a sufficient cause to condone the de....
This Court, therefore, is of the view that the explanation which has been furnished by the appellant in the delay condonation application, cannot be said to be a sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay reason being that the impugned judgment was passed on 13.12.2022 and the requisition for certified ... No.86 of 2021 on 05.01.2022 rejecting the delay condonation application since the appeal was filed after delay of about 687 days without any sufficient cause to condo....
(2012) 3 SCC 563 : (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 327 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 580 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 649]. 3. ... The court, despite establishment of a 'sufficient cause' for various reasons, may refuse to condone the delay depending upon the bona fides of the party." ... Notwithstanding the above, howsoever, liberal approach is adopted in condoning the delay, existence of 'sufficient cause' for not filing the appeal in time, is a condition precedent for exercising the discretion....
This Court, therefore, is of the view that the explanation which has been furnished by the appellant-petitioner in the delay condonation application, cannot be said to be a sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay. 14. ... However, it has been stated that the writ petitioner was living in remote place and could not know about the fate of the case but that ground also is not sufficient to condone the delay of 586 days in preferring the appeal. 13. ... No.86 of....
cause to condone the inordinate delay of 811 days. ... This Court, therefore, is of the view that the explanation which has been furnished by the appellant in the delay condonation application, cannot be said to be a sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay reason being that the impugned judgment was passed on 15.02.2018 and the requisition for certified ... No.86 of 2021 on 05.01.2022 rejecting the delay condonation application since the appeal was filed afte....
the petitions filed to condone the delay. ... At this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to seek an order to condone the inordinate delay of 1581 days in representing an unnumbered Application, seeking an order to set aside the ex-parte. ... In the instant case, it is clear that the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor has deliberately adopted delay tactics at various stages. Having appeared through Counsel in the earlier Execution Petition in E.P. ... Ther....
In the condone delay petition, the reason stated for delay are: He died issueless as a bachelor leaving behind his mother Praveena H. Mehta was the sole first class legal heir. Hence, sought for dismissal of the condone delay petition.
However, due to the non appearance of the petitioner or his counsel, the condone delay application viz. According to the petitioner, due to the serious injury caused to him, he has been continuously taking treatment, which resulted in the delay and he was unable to approach a lawyer for getting appropriate legal assistance. I.A. No. 17 of 2010, came to be dismissed for default on 09.04.2010, by the order of the Railways Claims Tribunal. But, according to the petitioner, only due to the reasons stated above, there was a delay of 594 days in filing the claim. 9. The....
Hence, the petitioner herein has filed the present revision petition. The petitioner herein has filed an unnumbered I.A. Petition to reopen the case and to review the order passed in P.W.No.2 of 2014 dated 22.11.2014. The review petition was returned stating that the Commissioner has no power to review his own order. The petitioner has filed the review petition along with a condone delay petition.
“On perusal of the petition for condonation it appears that there has been a delay of 108 days of which the petitioner spend for 16 days for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and as such, virtually there has been a delay of 92 days but the petitioner did not explain such delay properly and as such, I do not find any ground to condone such delay.” As consequence of the rejection of the petition for condonation, the appeal was dismissed. 5. Having appreciated the rival contentions, the first appellate court has observed as follows:
The learned District Munsif, Poonamallee has considered all the above judgments and dismissed the above application. The present judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court though it was huge delay of 882 days, but the condone delay application shall allowed on condition that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/-.
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
