Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Baljeet Singh (Dead) through Lrs. and others etc. etc. VS State of U. P. ...
Baljeet Singh (Dead) through Lrs. and others etc. etc. VS State of U. P. - 2019 7 Supreme 711 : To make out a case for condonation of delay, the applicant must establish a sufficient cause or reason that prevented them from initiating proceedings within the prescribed period of limitation. This sufficient cause must be a valid explanation for the delay, and the applicant must justify the delay with proper reasoning. Without such a showing, the delay cannot be condoned, and the claim may be barred on grounds of laches, acquiescence, or waiver due to gross negligence.Checking relevance for Balwant Singh VS Jagdish Singh...
Balwant Singh VS Jagdish Singh - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 557 : A ''''sufficient cause'''' for condonation of delay, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, refers to legal and adequate reasons that are reasonable, plausible, and capable of persuading the court that the delay was excusable. It must be such that it could not have been avoided by the exercise of due care and attention. The cause must reflect normal behavior of a prudent person and must not stem from negligence, default, inaction, or lack of bona fides. The explanation must be true, genuine, and supported by facts showing that the applicant acted diligently and took all possible steps within their control. The court must also consider the conduct of the parties, the nature of the delay, and whether the delay was due to the applicant''''s own fault. Importantly, ''''sufficient cause'''' does not include inordinate or unexplained delay, and liberal construction of the term is not meant to result in injustice to the other party. The presence of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and must be established before the court can condone the delay.Checking relevance for Maniben Devraj Shah VS Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai...
Maniben Devraj Shah VS Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai - 2012 2 Supreme 674 : A sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is determined by the bona fide nature of the explanation provided by the applicant. The length of delay is not the determining factor; rather, the sufficiency of the cause is paramount. The court must assess whether there was negligence on the part of the applicant and whether the explanation lacks mala fides or is concocted. If the explanation is found to be genuine and not the result of negligence or deliberate delay, the court may condone the delay. Conversely, if the explanation is found to be fabricated or the applicant is thoroughly negligent, it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay. The expression ''''sufficient cause'''' is elastic and allows courts to apply the law in a manner that serves the ends of justice, but the court must not ignore the rights acquired by the successful litigant based on the judgment under challenge or the prejudice caused to the opposite party. In cases involving the State or its agencies, while bureaucratic delays may be understandable, no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence, and the plea that dismissal on limitation grounds would harm public interest cannot be accepted as a matter of course.Checking relevance for State Of Haryana VS Chandra Mani...
State Of Haryana VS Chandra Mani - 1996 5 Supreme 75 : The expression ''''sufficient cause'''' for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 should be interpreted with pragmatism in a justice-oriented approach, rather than through a technical or pedantic examination of every day''''s delay. It should receive a liberal construction and is not subject to rigid rules. The court must consider the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature of the delay and whether the party acted with reasonable diligence. Factors peculiar to governmental functioning—such as impersonal machinery, bureaucratic methodology, note-making, file-pushing, and the ''''passing-on-the-buck'''' ethos—may be taken into account, especially when the State is the applicant. Delay caused by procedural red tape in government decision-making processes is common and warrants a certain amount of latitude. The court should decide matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate or stricter standards apply to the State compared to private litigants. The doctrine of equality before law requires that the State be treated equally, and the law be administered in an even-handed manner. The primary consideration is substantial justice, and the court should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting applications for condonation. The delay must not be due to mala fides, gross negligence, or deliberate inaction. In cases where public interest is affected and no bona fides are lacking, the delay may be condoned even if it is substantial.Checking relevance for Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. VS Karnataka Housing Board...
Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. VS Karnataka Housing Board - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1679 : A ''''sufficient cause'''' for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is an expression of elastic import, incapable of precise definition, yet not without boundaries. It must be real, bona fide, and free of negligence. The cause must be such that it prevented the applicant from filing the appeal or application within the prescribed period, and the explanation must be plausible, consistent with ordinary human conduct, and demonstrate reasonable diligence. The burden lies on the party seeking condonation to establish sufficient cause. The determination of sufficiency is contextual, based on the totality of circumstances, including the applicant''''s conduct and any prejudice caused to the opposite party. Courts must be satisfied that the cause is not due to negligence, want of good faith, or a casual approach. While the principle aims to advance substantial justice and prevent genuine litigants from being shut out due to unavoidable delays, it is not a charter for indolence or a device to revive stale claims. The expression ''''sufficient cause'''' must be construed to balance the advancement of justice with the discipline of limitation.
