Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (1.50 seconds)New India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Shanti Misra, Adult on 10 October, 1975
In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt.
Shanti Misra [AIR 1976 SC 237], this Court held that
discretion given by Section 5 should not be defined or
crystalized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a
rigid rule of law. The expression "sufficient cause' should
receive a liberal construction.
Shakuntala Devi Jain vs Kuntal Kumari And Ors. on 5 September, 1968
In Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari & Ors.
[(1969) 1 SCR 1006], a Bench of three Judges had held that
unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as
would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is
proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay
cannot be refused to be condoned.
Concord Of India Insurance Co Ltd vs Nirmala Devi And Ors on 16 April, 1979
In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi
& Ors. [(1979) 3 SCR 694] which is a case of negligence of
the counsel which misled a litigant into delayed pursuit of
his remedy the default in delay was condoned.
Lala Mata Din vs A. Narayanan on 25 August, 1969
In Lala Mata
Din v. A. Narayanan [(1970) 2 SCR 90], this Court had held
that there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel
by itself is always sufficient cause for condonation of
delay. It is always a question whether the mistake was bona
fide or was merely a devise tn cover an ulterior purpose. in
that case it was held that the mistake committed by the
counsel was bona fide and it was not tainted by any mala
fide motive.
State Of Kerala vs Haji K. Haji K. Kutty Naha & Ors. Etc on 13 August, 1968
In State of Kerala v. E.K. Kuriyipe & Ors. [(1981)
Supp. SCC 72], it was held that whether or not there is
sufficient cause for condonation of delay is a question of
fact dependant upon the facts and circumstances of the
particular case.
O.P. Kathpalia vs Lakhmir Singh (Dead) And Ors. on 23 July, 1984
In O.P. Kathpaliaa v. Lakhmir Singh (dead) & Ors.
[(1984) 4 SCC 66], a Bench of three Judges had held that if
the refusal to condone the delay results in grave
miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the
delay. Delay was accordingly condoned.
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
In Collector, Land
Acquisition, Anantrag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2
SCC 107], a Bench of two Judges considered the question of
the limitation in an appeal filed by the State and held that
Section 5 was enacted in order to enable the court to do
substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matters
on merits. The expression "sufficient cause is adequately
elastic to enable the court to apply the law in a meaningful
manner which subserves the ends of the justice-that being
the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of
courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been
making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted
in this Court. But the message does not appear to have
percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy.
This Court reiterated that the expression "every day's delay
must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach
should be made. The doctrine must be applied in a rational
common sense pragmatic manner. When substantial justice and
technical considerations are pitted against each other,
cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for
the other side cannot claim to have vested right in
injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
There is no presumption that delay is occasioned
deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on
account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit
by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
Judiciary is not respected on account of its power to
legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is
capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective,
there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the
institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the State
which was seeking condonation and not a private party was
altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law
demands that all litigants, including the State as a
litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is
administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant
for according a step-motherly treatment when the State is
the applicant. The delay was accordingly condoned.
Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd on 4 May, 1961
What constitute sufficient cause cannot be laid down by
hard and fast rules.
The Scheduled Caste Co-Operative Land ... vs Union Of India And Others on 18 September, 1990
In Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd.,
Bhatinda v. Union of India & Ors. [(1991) 1 SCC 174], a
Bench of three Judges of this Court held that the bona fides
of the parties are to be tested on merits and the delay of
1146 to 1079 days was not condoned on the ground that the
parties approached the court after decision on merits was
allowed in other cases by this Court. Therefore, it was held
that it did not furnish a ground for condonation of delay
under Section 5.