Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, on the basis of sufficient cause.
Analysis: The Court held that the expression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal construction where no negligence, inaction, or want of bona fides is attributable to the party seeking condonation. The High Court had dismissed the applications without properly considering the materials placed by the State and without recording reasons showing that the explanations were false or that the State had acted negligently. The record showed that after the State became aware that no appeal had been filed, it pursued the matter promptly, obtained legal advice, and acted on that advice in taking steps under Article 227 before filing the regular appeals with applications for condonation. Wrong legal advice and the absence of proved negligence were relevant circumstances supporting exercise of discretion in favour of condonation.
Conclusion: The delay was liable to be condoned and the applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, were allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the applicant shows prompt and bona fide steps to challenge the order and no negligence or inaction is established, delay should be condoned by a liberal exercise of discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.