Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.34 seconds)N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy on 3 September, 1998
4. In the affidavit, the petitioners have not disclosed any satisfactory
or justified reasons to condone such enormous delay. At this juncture, it is
worthwhile to refer that, the Apex Court, while dealing with the issue of
delay in extenso in the case of N.Balakrishnan V. M.Krishnamurthy
reported in (1998) 7 SCC observed as under:
Shakuntala Devi Jain vs Kuntal Kumari And Ors. on 5 September, 1968
12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would
result 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
Page 4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP No.17702 of 2024 in WA SR No.104336 of 2024
cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a
liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide
Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575]
and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah
Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749].
State Of West Bengal vs Administrator, Howrah Municipality & ... on 14 December, 1971
12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would
result 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
Page 4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP No.17702 of 2024 in WA SR No.104336 of 2024
cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a
liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide
Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575]
and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah
Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749].
Esha Bhattacharjee vs Mg.Commit.Of Raghunathpur Nafar ... on 13 September, 2013
5. The Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, after considering a series of earlier
decisions, summarised the principles to be followed while considering an
application for condonation of delay. The relevant portion of the said
decision is extracted hereunder:
H. Dohil Constructions Co P Ltd vs Nahar Exports Ltd &Amp Anr on 20 August, 2014
“23. When we apply those principles to the case on hand,
it has to be stated that the failure of the Respondents in not
showing due diligence in filing of the appeals and the enormous
time taken in the refiling can only be construed, in the absence
of any valid explanation, as gross negligence and lacks in
bonafides as displayed on the part of the Respondents. Further,
Page 6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP No.17702 of 2024 in WA SR No.104336 of 2024
when the Respondents have not come forward with proper
details as regards the date when the papers were returned for
refiling, the non-furnishing of satisfactory reasons for not
refiling of papers in time and the failure to pay the Court fee at
the time of the filing of appeal papers on 06.09.2007, the
reasons which prevented the Respondents from not paying the
Court fee along with the appeal papers and the failure to furnish
the details as to who was their counsel who was previously
entrusted with the filing of the appeals cumulatively considered,
disclose that there was total lack of bonafides in its approach. It
also requires to be stated that in the case on hand, not refiling
the appeal papers within the time CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF
2014 22 of 25 (@ SLP (C) Nos.10811-10812 of 2014 &
Connected matters prescribed and by allowing the delay to the
extent of nearly 1727 days, definitely calls for a stringent
scrutiny and cannot be accepted as having been explained
without proper reasons. As has been laid down by this Court,
Courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in
respect of both parties and the same principle cannot be given a
go-by under the guise of liberal approach even if it pertains to
refiling. The filing of an application for condoning the delay of
1727 days in the matter of refiling without disclosing reasons,
much less satisfactory reasons only results in the Respondents
not deserving any indulgence by the Court in the matter of
condonation of delay. The Respondents had filed the suit for
specific performance and when the trial Court found that the
claim for specific performance based on the agreement was
correct but exercised its discretion not to grant the relief for
specific performance but grant only a payment of damages and
the Respondents were really keen to get the decree for specific
performance by filing the appeals, they should have shown
utmost diligence and come forward with justifiable reasons
when an enormous delay of five years was involved in getting
its appeals registered”.
1