Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.70 seconds)Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
M.K. Prasad vs P.Arumugam on 30 July, 2001
In the case of P.K. Ramachandran (supra), while
refusing to condone the delay of 565 days, it is observed that in
the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate
Page 49 of 54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS SR Nos.107615 of 2018 etc., batch and
CMP Nos.18507 of 2018 etc batch
explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to
be condoned lightly. It is further observed that the law of
limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be
applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the
courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on
equitable grounds. It is further observed that while exercising
discretion for condoning the delay, the court has to exercise
discretion judiciously.
N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy on 3 September, 1998
17. Shri Mohta, learned senior counsel
relying on the decision of this court in N.
Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC
123] submitted that length of delay is no matter,
acceptability of explanation is the only criterion. It
was submitted that if the explanation offered does
not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part
of dilatory tactics the court must show utmost
consideration to the suitor. The very said decision
upon which reliance has been placed holds that the
law of limitation fixes a life span for every legal
remedy for the redress of the legal injury suffered.
Unending period for launching the remedy may lead
to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy.
The law of Limitation is thus founded on public
policy. The decision does not lay down that a
lethargic litigant can leisurely choose his own time
in preferring appeal or application as the case may
Page 40 of 54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS SR Nos.107615 of 2018 etc., batch and
CMP Nos.18507 of 2018 etc batch
be. On the other hand, in the said judgment it is said
that court should not forget the opposite party
altogether. It is observed:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 47 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Office Of The Chief Post Master & Ors vs Living Media India Ltd.& Anr on 24 February, 2012
25. We have already extracted the reasons as
mentioned in the "better affidavit" sworn by Mr.
Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting
Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the
Page 27 of 54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS SR Nos.107615 of 2018 etc., batch and
CMP Nos.18507 of 2018 etc batch
said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned
and is aware of the date of the judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court in Office of the
Chief Postmaster vs. Living Media Limited as
11.09.2009. Even according to the deponent, their
counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said
judgment only on 08.01.2010 and the same was
received by the Department on the very same day.
State Of West Bengal vs Administrator, Howrah Municipality & ... on 14 December, 1971
9. Again in State of W.B. v. Administrator,
Howrah Municipality and G. Ramegowda Major v.
Special Land Acquisition Officer this Court
observed that the expression "sufficient cause" in
Section 5 of the Limitation Act must receive a liberal
construction so as to advance substantial justice
and generally delays be condoned in the interest of
Page 31 of 54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS SR Nos.107615 of 2018 etc., batch and
CMP Nos.18507 of 2018 etc batch
justice where gross negligence or deliberate
inaction or lack of bona fides is not imputable to the
party seeking condonation of delay.
G. Ramegowda, Major, Etc vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 10 March, 1988
9. Again in State of W.B. v. Administrator,
Howrah Municipality and G. Ramegowda Major v.
Special Land Acquisition Officer this Court
observed that the expression "sufficient cause" in
Section 5 of the Limitation Act must receive a liberal
construction so as to advance substantial justice
and generally delays be condoned in the interest of
Page 31 of 54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS SR Nos.107615 of 2018 etc., batch and
CMP Nos.18507 of 2018 etc batch
justice where gross negligence or deliberate
inaction or lack of bona fides is not imputable to the
party seeking condonation of delay.