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>High Court dismisses appeal challenging rejection of application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC due to 224-day delay</h1> <h3>Finolux Auto Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Versus Finolex Cable Ltd. and Ors.</h3> The High Court rejected an appeal challenging the rejection of an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC due to a 224-day delay in filing. The appellant's ... - Issues:1. Appeal filed under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC rejected by Single Judge2. Delay of 224 days in filing present appeal3. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay4. Vagueness in statements made in the application5. Negligence and inaction of counsel and appellant6. Insufficient explanation for delay7. Reference to Supreme Court decision on condonation of delayAnalysis:1. The appellant filed an appeal in the High Court challenging the rejection of their application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC by a Single Judge. However, the appeal was found to be barred by a delay of 224 days in filing. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was submitted by the appellant seeking condonation of the delay.2. The appellant explained that they received the certified copy of the impugned order on 23rd September, 2004, and the appeal was filed on 24th September, 2004, resulting in a delay of four days. However, the statements in the application were deemed vague as no specific date was provided regarding when the counsel sent the appeal draft to the appellant for signatures.3. Upon reviewing the records, it was observed that the original appeal, which was returned due to objections, was not refiled. Instead, a fresh appeal was filed later on. The lack of clarity on why the original appeal was not refiled indicated negligence and inaction on the part of both the counsel and the appellant.4. The Court noted that the explanations provided in the application for the 224-day delay were insufficient and unsatisfactory. The vagueness and ambiguity in the statements, coupled with the absence of proper documentation regarding the objections raised by the Registry, further weakened the appellant's case for condonation of delay.5. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Court emphasized that inordinate delays should not be condoned without a reasonable or satisfactory explanation. The lack of a proper justification for the delay led the Court to reject the appellant's application and subsequently dismiss the appeal.6. In conclusion, the Court found that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, leading to the rejection of the application for condonation of delay and the dismissal of the appeal. An additional application mentioned in the judgment was dismissed as infructuous.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
