SA HC | ‘Plascon-Evans Rule’ could not resolve the disputed facts; application referred to trial
South Africa High Court, Free State Division, Bloemfontein: V.M. Morobane, AJ. referred the application to trial as the facts were not capable
Condonation of delay
NCDRC | Law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigor even though it may harshly affect a particular party
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi: C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) dismissed a revision petition as the petitioner was not able to
NGT | Delay in filing an appeal can be condoned on supply of sufficient cause, once the events of intervening period are explained
National Green Tribunal (NGT), Delhi: A Coram of Justice Raghuvendra S. Rathore (Judicial Member) and Dr Satyawan Singh Garbyal (Expert Member) allowed
J&K HC | Unending period for launching remedy may lead to an unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy; application for condonation of delay rejected
Jammu & Kashmir High Court: Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. rejected an application for seeking condonation of delay in the filing review petition.
Bom HC | Time period fixed under Or. 8 R. 1 CPC is directory in nature; delay in filing written statement condoned
Bombay High Court at Goa: C.V. Bhadang, J., condoned a delay of 50 days in filing the written statement. As per facts
Del HC | Court is not storage of petitions filed by negligent litigants: Not permitted to blame previous counsel after 21 years for not providing case record
‘Vigilantibus, non-dermientibus, jura subveniunt’ (the law helps those who are watchful and not those who are asleep) Delhi High Court: Vinod Goel, J.,
P&H HC | DRT has jurisdiction under S. 5 of Limitation Act to condone delay if application filed with Securitization Application
Punjab and Haryana High Court: This petition was filed before a Division Bench of Amit Rawal and Arun Kumar Tyagi, JJ. against
Decisive factor for condonation of delay is not length of delay but sufficient and satisfactory explanation
Gujarat High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of S.H. Vora, J. allowed the condonation of delay as the sufficient cause stands
Appeal filed along with application for condonation of delay when dismissed is a decree within Section 2(2) CPC
Orissa High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Dr A.K. Rath, J., dismissed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the
Discretionary order for condonation of delay passed by quasi-judicial powers cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sanjeev Kumar, J., dismissed the current writ petition invoked for quashing
Increasing tendency of treating delay in filing as a non-serious matter: Need for a vigilant and cautious approach by the Courts
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J., dismissed a revision petition filed against the order of
Time consumed in party bona fidely litigating cause before wrong forum is to be considered for condonation of delay
Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of A.M. Dhavale, J. allowed an appeal filed against the order of District Judge
Application seeking condonation of delay must meet the test of Section 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir Limitation Samvat, 1995 and satisfy the court with sufficient cause for delay
Jammu & Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge bench comprising of M.K. Hanjura, J. while dealing with an application for condonation of
Principles while considering petition for condonation of delay reiterated, lack of bona fides is ground for dismissal
Sikkim High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Meenakshi Madan Rai, Acting CJ. dismissed a petition filed for condonation of 50
Condonation of delay rejected due to ‘lackadaisical approach’ of the applicant
Sikkim High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Meenakshi Madan Rai, Acting CJ. dismissed an application for condonation of 115 days’
Period of delay is not the criteria while considering application under Section 5 of Limitation Act
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ., refused to condone a delay of 65
Power under S. 5 of Limitation Act is not to be exercised in a mechanical manner
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A civil petition was decided by a Single Judge Bench comprising of Ajay Mohan Goel, J., wherein the
Application seeking condonation of delay and main proceeding cannot be clubbed together along with adduced evidence under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC
High Court of Jammu and Kashmir: The Bench of Alok Aradhe J. recently addressed a revision petition wherein the petitioner challenged the
30 days limitation period under Section 30 of RDB Act can’t be condoned by Section 5 of Limitation Act
Supreme Court: Deciding the question as to whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be invoked to condone the prescribed
If the delay is not condonable statutorily, it cannot be condoned taking recourse to Article 142 of the Constitution
Supreme Court: In an appeal preferred under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the 3-Judge Bench of Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar