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>Power of attorney holder's unsupported asthmatic complaints insufficient for 288-day delay condonation under Section 5 Limitation Act</h1> <h3>SATHY M.P. AND M.P. BABY Versus SARASA, BABY, AMBILY AND VIMALA</h3> Kerala HC dismissed application for condonation of delay in filing review petitions after 288 days. Court held that 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of ... Condonation of delay in filing review petitions - whether the petitioners have established sufficient cause for not preferring the review petitions within the statutory period? - ground for the exercise of the discretion in condoning the delay, established or not - HELD THAT:- The expression “sufficient cause” contained in Section 5 of the Limitation Act is elastic enough to yield different results depending upon the circumstances of the case. The criteria to be applied in condoning the delay in different claims may be different. For example, in the case of beneficial legislations a liberal interpretation must be given to the expression “sufficient cause” to serve its object. The concept of reasonableness demands that the courts, while taking a liberal approach, must also consider the rights and obligations of both the parties. When a right has accrued in favour of one party due to gross negligence of the other, the Court shall refrain from exercising the discretionary relief. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the Statute mandates so. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. In Basawaraj [2013 (12) TMI 274 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court held that ‘sufficient cause’ means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has not acted diligently or remained inactive. The Supreme Court further held that the applicant must satisfy the court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The Court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose, the Supreme Court added. The review petitions have been filed by the power of attorney holder of the petitioners. No materials have been placed before the Court to show that the review petitioners had any inconvenience or difficulty in prosecuting the matter. The power of attorney holder of the review petitioners pleaded that he was suffering from asthmatic complaints. No materials have been produced to explain the delay of 288 days in preferring the review petitions. The claim of the review petitioners lacks bona fides. Application dismissed. Issues involved:Delay in filing review petitions challenging a common judgment in R.S.A.Nos.646 & 1038 of 2009.Petitioners' Plea:The review petitioners sought to condone the delay of 288 days in filing review petitions due to the power of attorney holder's severe asthmatic problems and related diseases since 2014 onwards. They claimed no laches or intentional default in filing the review petitions.Respondents' Objection:The contesting respondent contended that the delay was caused to the power of attorney holder and not to the review petitioners directly. They alleged that the review petitioners were being used as a tool against the respondents.Legal Considerations:The questions for consideration were whether the petitioners established sufficient cause for the delay and if they had grounds for condoning the delay. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was cited, emphasizing the need to satisfy the court with sufficient cause for delay.Court's Analysis:The court noted that the expression 'sufficient cause' in the Limitation Act allows for different interpretations based on the circumstances of each case. While a liberal approach is warranted, the court must also consider the rights and obligations of both parties. The court highlighted that the law of limitation serves public policy objectives.Precedents and Principles:Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that a party seeking condonation of delay must show that they acted diligently and without negligence. The court highlighted the importance of substantial justice and the need to balance the interests of all parties involved.Decision:After analyzing the facts of the case, the court found that the review petitioners failed to provide adequate reasons to condone the delay. The court concluded that the delay lacked bona fides and dismissed the review petitions as barred by limitation.Separate Judgment:A separate judgment was delivered dismissing the Review Petitions (R.P.Nos.497 & 498 of 2015) following the dismissal of the condonation of delay applications (C.M.Appl.Nos.409 & 410 of 2015).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
