Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court was of the view that the petition and the accompanying application seeking an extension of time were filed and registered in the registry of this Court when CrPC, 1973 was in force, hence, the matter would fall under the scope of Section 531(2)(a) and this petition should be adjudicated through the provisions of CrPC, 1973.
Gauhati High Court holds statutory bar to remarry u/s 15 HMA cannot be extended by filing application seeking condonation of delay to challenge the divorce decree.
Supreme Court directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession, change of land use, and creation of third-party rights till fresh acquisition proceedings are completed
The Court stated that, while it is important that litigants including the State, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered even- handedly; however, a little latitude is considered by the Courts when the State is the seeking condonation of delay.
Allahabad High Court noted that while the appellants alleged their counsel failed to inform them about the case’s dismissal, there’s no evidence they actively sought updates from the counsel during the six-year period.
“The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not.”
Calcutta High Court acknowledged that due to the nationwide lockdown imposed by the Central Government arising out of COVID pandemic situation in the Country, followed by strict minimum attendance schedule followed in all the government offices, the movement of official work got inadvertently delayed.
“Even if the Registry declines registration, the Court has ample power to condone the delay in re-filing. This power has to be exercised liberally although cautiously to avoid delay by an unscrupulous litigant.”
Limitation shall commence from the date when order is passed and shall not depend on the date when Appellant came to know of the order.
“By the Civil Procedure Code (amendment Act, 1999) the scope of Section 115 of the code has been curtailed but that does not mean that due to such curtailment, the High court’s power of superintendence under Article 227 has been expanded.”
The appellants mainly averred that the further period of 90 days had not expired on the date of imposition of lockdown as on 23-03-2020.
“Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 operate in different spheres and apply to orders passed by different forums i.e., District Court and the Family Court respectively.”
“In application for condonation of delay in refiling of appeal, the applicant/appellant has to give sufficient reason for not re-filing the appeal within the time prescribed.”
The primary intent of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 Act is to safeguard the rights of the unborn girl child and promote gender equality by curbing the misuse of diagnostic techniques for sex determination. Therefore, while deciding applications seeking condonation of delay, Courts should prioritize the Act’s underlying purpose over technicalities.
Justice Alok Aradhe was sworn in as Chief Justice of Telangana High Court on 23-07-2023 by the Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan. He succeeded Justice Ujjal Bhuyan who has been elevated as a Judge in the Supreme Court of India. Justice Aradhe has formerly served as Judge in Karnataka, Jammu and Kashmir and Madhya Pradesh High Courts.
The NCLAT rejected an application seeking Condonation of Delay of 49 days (about 1 and a half months) on the ground of want of sufficient cause.
The Supreme Court was unimpressed with the explanation given by the plaintiff for the delay of 853 days that he initially fell sick with Jaundice and was later confined to house with High Blood Pressure, Diabetes and other diseases. The petition had extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/-.
Kerala High Court perused Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and held that the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot condone the delay in filing an appeal by entertaining an application under Limitation Act.
Madras High Court: In a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for