Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005
3. It has been contended that the State, after obtaining necessary
documents and information with respect to the case, faced delay due to
compliance with various departmental formalities and the functioning of
Government machinery, as the State Government is a multi-functional
body and, at times, completion of departmental formalities takes
unexpectedly long time. Therefore, in certain cases, the State is
prevented from filing proceedings within the prescribed period of
limitation, which is bona fide and not deliberate. The instant appeal has,
therefore, been filed with a delay of 311 days beyond the prescribed
period of limitation. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Nagaland vs. Lipok Ao, reported in
(2005) 3 SCC 372, in support of the submissions. Accordingly, learned
State counsel prays that the delay of 311 days in preferring the appeal
may be condoned.
State Of Chhattisgarh vs P.K. Tailang 4 Crr/1141/2016 Dayaram ... on 26 September, 2019
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in an identical
matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 183 of 2026 (State of
Chhattisgarh & Others v. Vikas Kumar Choubey) vide order dated
27.02.2026 on the ground of delay. It is, therefore, contended that the
present appeal also deserves to be dismissed on the same ground.
Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs Reddy Sridevi on 16 December, 2021
In Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi, 2021
SCC Online SC 1260, it was held by this Court that
even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of
a party, it has to be applied with all its rigour when
6
prescribed by statute.
Ajay Dabra vs Pyare Ram on 31 January, 2023
A reference was also made to
the decision of this Court in Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram,
2023 SCC Online 92 wherein, it was held as follows:
Basawaraj & Anr vs Spl.Laq Officer on 22 August, 2013
which means an adequate and enough
reason which prevented him to approach
the court within limitation. In case a party is
found to be negligent, or for want of bona
fide on his part in the facts and
circumstances of the case, or found to
have not acted diligently or remained
inactive, there cannot be a justified ground
to condone the delay. No court could be
justified in condoning such an inordinate
delay by imposing any condition
whatsoever. The application is to be
decided only within the parameters laid
down by this Court in regard to the
condonation of delay. In case there was no
sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to
approach the court on time condoning the
delay without any justification, putting any
condition whatsoever, amounts to passing
an order in violation of the statutory
provisions and it tantamounts to showing
utter disregard to the legislature."
Ajit Singh Thakur Singh And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 9 January, 1981
No event or circumstance arising
after the expiry of limitation can constitute such
sufficient cause. There may be events or
circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation
which may further delay the filing of the appeal. But
that the limitation has been allowed to expire without
the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause
arising within the period of limitation. (See: Ajit Singh
Thakur Singh and Another v. State of Gujarat, AIR
1981 SC 733)."
Union Of India vs Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) ... on 13 September, 2019
In Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji
Jeejeebhoy (D) through his legal heir, 2024
INSC 262, wherein, one of us
(J.B.Pardiwala, J) was a member, after
referring to various decisions on the issue,
it was in unequivocal terms observed by
this Court that delay should not be excused
as a matter of generosity and rendering
substantial justice is not to cause prejudice
to the opposite party. The relevant passage
of the same is profitably extracted below:
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramkumar Choudhary on 8 January, 2020
8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present
11
case, in the light of aforementioned judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matters of Postmaster General (supra) and Ramkumar
Choudhary (supra), it is evident that Government departments are
under a special obligation to discharge their duties with due
diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception,
not the rule, and cannot be claimed as a matter of right or
anticipated privilege by Government entities. The law casts its
protection equally upon all litigants and cannot be distorted to
confer undue advantage upon a select few.