Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Sibling bond is for moral support which makes this relationship very special. However, nowadays, sadly, siblings don’t stand together but against each other in court of law.”
“The revisional authority ought to have examined whether sufficient cause existed. Instead, it declined to consider the application merely on a technical ground.”
The Court observed that imposition of costs was necessary to send a clear message that Court time is valuable and cannot be taken for granted.
“In criminal jurisprudence, the right of speedy trial is recognised as a fundamental right and just because the accused had participated in the trial at one stage, at other stage he does not lose a right to ask for bail.”
“The prosecutrix is not an accomplice but rather the victim and the sole injured witness of the assault, and thus her evidence assumes great evidentiary value. But where she declines to identify the perpetrators, she is either a consenting party, or the persons being tried are not the actual perpetrators.”
The Advocate failed to inform the appellant that the case had been withdrawn by the opposite party three years ago, thus the Court stated that right created in favour of one party cannot be taken away when the delay was a direct result of the negligence and inaction of other party.
“As there is conflicting view upon the same by co-ordinate benches, in such circumstances this Court is of the view that the issue should be examined by a larger bench.”
“The compliance as required to be done by the tenant in Section 7(1)(a)(b)(c) and first part of Section 7(2) of the WBPT Act regarding deposit of rent and filing an application within the same time is mandatory”.
The RP sought exclusion of the time it took for NCLT to decide the applications filed under Section 19 of the IBC regarding the non-cooperation by the Company.
In the instant matter, appellant was a poor person having no source of earning and there was no one in the immediate family to take care which caused delay in filing the appeal.
The Court was sympathetic to the difficulty cast on the petitioner on account of restricted movement due to hostile weather and old age, but the Court did not understand as to what precluded his counsel from acting on his behalf.
The appellants cannot seek condonation of such colossal delay under the pretext of professional misconduct of their previous counsel. It is not only the colossal length of delay; it is the unacceptable explanation of the delay, which must be discarded.
“It is now trite law that State agencies cannot hide behind the conventional excuse of bureaucratic delays and inefficiency in the State’s capacity, to condone delays.”
Forcing the parties to file a written statement or to complete the pleadings during the process of mediation will prevent the parties in freely communicating with each other, which they have not been able to do since the dispute started.
“Merely because such transferee pendente lite does not come on record, the concept of him (transferee pendente lite) not being bound by the judgment does not arise and consequently he would be bound by the result of the litigation, though he remains unrepresented”.
The Tribunal in the impugned decision reasoned that- whenever Government for public purpose bifurcates districts, a complex situation arises and on account of the same sometimes issues like the present, escape the notice of the Government authorities therefore, good cause for condoning delay of more than 22 years was made out.
APTEL said that the sufficient cause to be shown by an applicant, for the delay to be condoned, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, it would not be justified to apply a uniform criterion to determine whether the cause shown is sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
Entry 31 of Schedule of Fees prescribed by the NCLT Rules stipulates that the fee for obtaining true certified copies of final orders passed to parties other than the concerned parties under Rule 50 shall be Rs 5 per page. The stipulation of Rupees five per page in Entry 31 excludes “the concerned parties under Rule 50”.
State to inquire whether the Chairman of the quasi-judicial body like the Tribunal in passing such orders which are contrary to the settled proposition of law and decisions of the Supreme Court, should be permitted to continue on such a senior position.
If the power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way.