{"id":197646,"date":"2018-06-28T16:54:18","date_gmt":"2018-06-28T11:24:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=197646"},"modified":"2018-07-06T14:44:01","modified_gmt":"2018-07-06T09:14:01","slug":"period-of-delay-is-not-the-criteria-while-considering-application-under-section-5-of-limitation-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/28\/period-of-delay-is-not-the-criteria-while-considering-application-under-section-5-of-limitation-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Period of delay is not the criteria while considering application under Section 5 of Limitation Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: <\/strong>A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ., refused to condone a delay of 65 days in filing the appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which was consequently dismissed.<\/p>\n

The appellant filed the said appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge who dismissed appellant\u2019s objection to the award passed by the Arbitrator. However, there was a delay of 65 days in filing the appeal. The appellant sought condonation of such delay on the grounds that the appellant was a corporate body (a company) with a legal department and higher management. Every decision of filing an appeal is scrutinised by the higher management. It was stated that the appellant had preferred to take opinion from some counsels, and also made a self-analysis of the case. Thereafter, the facts were placed before the management who took the decision of filing the appeal. Thus, the appellant submitted, the delay was on account of bona fide reasons and not due to inaction or carelessness.<\/p>\n

The High Court did not find favour with the submissions of the appellant. Referring to a few Supreme Court decisions, the High Court observed that while deciding an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, the courts must adopt a liberal approach, provided there is no gross negligence, deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. Further, while considering the application seeking condonation of delay, the period of delay is not the criteria. A short delay may not be condoned in absence of an acceptable explanation while a large delay may be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory. <\/em>In the instant case, the appellant was a private limited company with a legal department. The application for condonation of delay was highly casual in nature, it lacked material particulars and did not disclose sufficient cause for the condoning the delay. A bald statement of taking opinion from some counsels could not be taken as a sufficient cause. Holding thus, the High Court denied to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. [Lifelong Mediatech (P) Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,\u00a0 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9559<\/a>, dated 03-05-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ., refused to condone a delay of 65 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[8991,2552,30718,30719],"class_list":["post-197646","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-appeal","tag-Condonation_of_delay","tag-inaction","tag-section-5-of-limitation-act"],"yoast_head":"\nPeriod of delay is not the criteria while considering application under Section 5 of Limitation Act | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/28\/period-of-delay-is-not-the-criteria-while-considering-application-under-section-5-of-limitation-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Period of delay is not the criteria while considering application under Section 5 of Limitation Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ., refused to condone a delay of 65\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/28\/period-of-delay-is-not-the-criteria-while-considering-application-under-section-5-of-limitation-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-06-28T11:24:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-06T09:14:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/28\/period-of-delay-is-not-the-criteria-while-considering-application-under-section-5-of-limitation-act\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/28\/period-of-delay-is-not-the-criteria-while-considering-application-under-section-5-of-limitation-act\/\",\"name\":\"Period of delay is not the criteria while considering application under Section 5 of Limitation Act | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-06-28T11:24:18+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-06T09:14:01+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/28\/period-of-delay-is-not-the-criteria-while-considering-application-under-section-5-of-limitation-act\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/28\/period-of-delay-is-not-the-criteria-while-considering-application-under-section-5-of-limitation-act\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/28\/period-of-delay-is-not-the-criteria-while-considering-application-under-section-5-of-limitation-act\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Period of delay is not the criteria while considering application under Section 5 of Limitation Act\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Period of delay is not the criteria while considering application under Section 5 of Limitation Act | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/28\/period-of-delay-is-not-the-criteria-while-considering-application-under-section-5-of-limitation-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Period of delay is not the criteria while considering application under Section 5 of Limitation Act","og_description":"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ., refused to condone a delay of 65","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/28\/period-of-delay-is-not-the-criteria-while-considering-application-under-section-5-of-limitation-act\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-06-28T11:24:18+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-06T09:14:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/28\/period-of-delay-is-not-the-criteria-while-considering-application-under-section-5-of-limitation-act\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/28\/period-of-delay-is-not-the-criteria-while-considering-application-under-section-5-of-limitation-act\/","name":"Period of delay is not the criteria while considering application under Section 5 of Limitation Act | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-06-28T11:24:18+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-06T09:14:01+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/28\/period-of-delay-is-not-the-criteria-while-considering-application-under-section-5-of-limitation-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/28\/period-of-delay-is-not-the-criteria-while-considering-application-under-section-5-of-limitation-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/28\/period-of-delay-is-not-the-criteria-while-considering-application-under-section-5-of-limitation-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Period of delay is not the criteria while considering application under Section 5 of Limitation Act"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":211230,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/03\/02\/raj-hc-delay-in-filing-the-appeal-due-to-ongoing-vacation-of-navratri-and-non-availability-of-counsel-in-jodhpur-not-enough-reason-for-condonation\/","url_meta":{"origin":197646,"position":0},"title":"Raj HC | Delay in filing appeal due to ongoing vacation of \u2018Navratri\u2019, and non-availability of counsel in Jodhpur: Not enough reason for condonation","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 2, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Rajasthan High Court: The Bench of Dinesh Mehta and Sangeet Lodha, JJ. dismissed the appeal filed against the order passed by the Single Judge of the Court whereby writ petition preferred by the writ-petitioner\/appellant seeking a direction to respondents to rectify the inventory after an inordinate delay of 54 years\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":194179,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/19\/power-under-s-5-of-limitation-act-is-not-to-be-exercised-in-a-mechanical-manner\/","url_meta":{"origin":197646,"position":1},"title":"Power under S. 5 of Limitation Act is not to be exercised in a mechanical manner","author":"Saba","date":"March 19, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: A civil petition was decided by a Single Judge Bench comprising of Ajay Mohan Goel, J., wherein the application of the appellant praying to condone the delay of 2376 days in filing the appeal was dismissed. The ground which appellant took in order to justify such\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":203234,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/06\/time-consumed-in-party-bona-fidely-litigating-cause-before-wrong-forum-is-to-be-considered-for-condonation-of-delay\/","url_meta":{"origin":197646,"position":2},"title":"Time consumed in party bona fidely litigating cause before wrong forum is to be considered for condonation of delay \u00a0","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 6, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of A.M. Dhavale, J. allowed an appeal filed against the order of District Judge whereby appellant\u2019s application for condonation of delay in filing first appeal was dismissed. There was a partition between the appellant and his two sisters. Originally, in 2004, after\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":283308,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/07\/s-149-cpc-acts-as-an-exception-or-even-a-proviso-to-s-4-of-court-fees-act-1870-supreme-court-reiterates-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":197646,"position":3},"title":"Section 149 CPC acts as an exception, or even a proviso to Section 4 of Court Fees Act ,1870; Supreme Court reiterates","author":"Editor","date":"February 7, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court reiterated that in terms of Section 4, an appeal cannot be filed before a High Court without court fee, if the same is prescribed. But this provision must be read along with Section 149 of CPC.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-308.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":219307,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/09\/chh-hc-acquittal-appeal-filed-after-almost-a-deal-of-thirteen-and-a-half-years-dismissed-on-grounds-of-unexplained-delay-and-laches\/","url_meta":{"origin":197646,"position":4},"title":"Chh HC | Acquittal appeal filed after almost a delay of thirteen and a half years dismissed on grounds of \u2018unexplained delay and laches\u2019","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 9, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Chhattisgarh High Court: The Division Bench comprising of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Gautam Chourdiya, JJ., \u00a0dismissed an application for \u201ccondonation of delay in filing acquittal appeal\u201d on finding no satisfactory explanation for a delay of almost thirteen and a half years. The present application was filed for condonation of delay\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":305636,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/25\/nclat-dismisses-condonation-of-delay-application-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":197646,"position":5},"title":"\u2018Timelines are of great significance in IBC\u2019; NCLAT dismisses condonation of delay application","author":"Ritu","date":"October 25, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"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.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"national company law appellate tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197646","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=197646"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197646\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197646"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197646"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197646"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}