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 of 1707 days in filing the appeal should be condoned and, consequentially, whether the appeal barred by limitation should be entertained.
Analysis: The application for condonation was examined against the legal parameters governing condonation of delay, including the requirement to demonstrate a "sufficient cause" for delay. The applicable legal framework distinguishes the strict construction of limitation under Section 3 and the more liberal interpretation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, while emphasising that courts may exercise discretion to condone delay only upon adequate explanation. Considerations include the length of delay, presence of inordinate delay, negligence or lack of due diligence, and absence of cogent reasons explaining the delay. Where an inordinate delay is shown and no adequate explanation or due diligence is provided, condonation is not warranted even if substantial justice considerations are noted.
Conclusion: The application for condonation of delay is rejected and the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation; decision is against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay under Section 5 requires demonstration of sufficient cause; inordinate delay accompanied by negligence or lack of due diligence and absence of cogent explanation precludes exercise of discretion to condone delay.