Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.64 seconds)Shakuntala Devi Jain vs Kuntal Kumari And Ors. on 5 September, 1968
12. A Court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari (1969) 1 SCR 1006 and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (1972) 1 SCC 366.
State Of West Bengal vs Administrator, Howrah Municipality & ... on 14 December, 1971
12. A Court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari (1969) 1 SCR 1006 and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (1972) 1 SCC 366.
Jyotsana Sharda vs Gaurav Sharda on 22 December, 2009
In Jyotsana Sharda vs Gaurav Sharda, (2010-3) 159 P.L.R. D15,Delhi High Court, while condoning 52 days delay, in filing the appeal, observed as under:-
N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy on 3 September, 1998
In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 123, there was a delay of 883 days, in filing application, for setting aside exparte decree, for which application for condonation of delay was filed, the Apex Court held as under:-
Section 12 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
7. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case also. The reasons, mentioned in the application, for condonation of delay can be said to be plausible. The application for condonation of delay, is duly supported by the affidavit of Mrs. Neelakshi Copra, applicant/appellant. The delay in filing the appeal has been sufficiently explained, by the applicant/appellant. The delay, in filing the appeal was, thus, not intentional. It is settled principle of law, that normally every lis, should be decided, on merits. When the substantial justice and the procedural wrangles are pitted against each other, then the former shall prevail over the latter. The main object of the Consumer Fora, is to dispense substantial justice, and not to throttle the same, by making it a sacrificial goat, at the altar of hyper-technicalities. Some lapse, on the part of the litigant alone is not enough to turn down his plea, and shut the door against him/her. The explanation furnished for delay, in filing the appeal, does not smack of malafidies. When the explanation furnished for delay is bonafide, the Consumer Fora is required to adopt liberal approach, to condone the same, so as to ensure that the lis is decided, on merits, than by resorting to hyper-technicalities. In the instant case, in our considered opinion, there was no intentional and deliberate delay, in filing the appeal, by the applicant/appellant. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned. There is, thus, sufficient cause, for condoning the delay. The application thus, deserves to be accepted.
1