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>Court dismisses appeal due to unsatisfactory explanation for delay, emphasizing equal standards for all entities filing appeals.</h1> <h3>Delhi Development Authority Versus Ramesh Kumar</h3> The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal, citing the appellant's unsatisfactory explanation for the delay ... - Issues:Delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code.Analysis:The application was filed by the DDA seeking condonation of a 182-day delay in filing an appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge dated September 24, 1993. The delay was attributed to various administrative and procedural issues within the department. The appellant claimed that the delay was due to the time taken to obtain certified copies of the judgment and decree, as well as procedural delays within the department. However, the court found the explanation provided by the appellant to be unsatisfactory. There were inconsistencies in the timeline of events, such as delays in contacting the advocate for drafting the appeal and obtaining certified copies, which were not adequately explained by the appellant.The court noted that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delays in the filing process. Despite claiming that the delay was due to governmental and departmental procedures, the court emphasized the need for proper justification for the delay in filing the appeal. The court referred to a previous judgment where departmental delay was condoned, but in this case, the appellant's negligence in explaining the delay adequately led to the dismissal of the application for condonation. The court highlighted that administrative delays must also be properly explained, and negligence or indolence in pursuing the matter cannot be condoned simply because the appellant is a State or Government Undertaking. The court emphasized that there cannot be different standards for limitations based on the entity filing the appeal.In conclusion, the court held that the delay in filing the appeal was not satisfactorily explained by the appellant, indicating gross negligence on their part. Despite the appellant's argument that the delay was due to governmental and departmental procedures, the court dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal was rejected due to the failure to provide a valid explanation for the delay in filing the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
