TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court stresses timely justice, dismisses appeal over delay, underscores law of limitation</h1> <h3>B. Madhuri Goud Versus B. Damodar Reddy</h3> B. Madhuri Goud Versus B. Damodar Reddy - 2012 (12) SCC 693 Issues Involved:1. Condonation of 1236 days delay in filing an appeal.2. Application of the 'sufficient cause' standard under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.3. Evaluation of the explanation provided by the Respondent for the delay.4. Interpretation of judicial precedents regarding delay condonation.Detailed Analysis:1. Condonation of 1236 Days Delay in Filing an Appeal:The primary issue is whether the 1236 days delay in filing an appeal by the Respondent against the ex-parte judgment dated 18.08.2006 should be condoned. The Respondent attributed the delay to the misplacement of certified copies of documents by the office of his counsel. The High Court condoned the delay, accepting the explanation provided by the Respondent.2. Application of the 'Sufficient Cause' Standard:The Supreme Court examined the application of the 'sufficient cause' standard under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court emphasized that the expression 'sufficient cause' is elastic enough to enable courts to apply the law in a manner that serves the ends of justice. The Court referenced the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, highlighting that a liberal approach should be adopted to ensure substantial justice.3. Evaluation of the Explanation Provided by the Respondent:The Respondent claimed that after obtaining certified copies of documents on 09.01.2009, he handed them over to his counsel on 10.01.2009. However, the documents were misplaced and were only found on 02.03.2010. The Supreme Court found this explanation to be vague and lacking credibility. The Court noted that the Respondent did not make any effort to contact the advocate for over a year and did not provide the name of the advocate or an affidavit from the concerned advocate.4. Interpretation of Judicial Precedents:The Court referred to several precedents to guide its decision:- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji: Emphasized a liberal approach to condonation of delay to ensure justice is served on merits.- N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy: Highlighted that the length of delay is immaterial if the explanation is acceptable, and the discretion exercised by the court should not be disturbed unless it is arbitrary or perverse.- P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala: Stressed that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously when prescribed by statute.- Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai: Noted that while a liberal approach is required, the courts should not ignore the rights acquired by the successful litigant and the time consumed in litigation.The Supreme Court concluded that the Respondent's explanation lacked credibility and the High Court erred in condoning the delay based on a vague and unsubstantiated explanation. The appeal was allowed, and the application for condonation of 1236 days delay was dismissed. The Court reiterated that the law of limitation is founded on public policy to ensure timely redressal of legal injuries and prevent unending uncertainty.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order condoning the delay, emphasizing the need for a credible and bona fide explanation for delays. The judgment underscores the balance between a liberal approach to delay condonation and the necessity of adhering to the statutory limits to ensure timely justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 