Professional Documents
Culture Documents
... Appellant
Versus
...Respondents
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
1. Leave granted in both the special leave
petitions.
2. The singular question that we intend to
address in these appeals, by special leave, is
whether the Division Bench of the High Court
of Calcutta is justified in entertaining the CAN
No. 365 of 2011 for condoning the delay of
Page1
2449
days
in
A.S.T.A.
No.
10
of
2011
stay
of
further
proceedings
in
to
say,
the
said
order
is
Page2
the
application
the
services
of
the
Nafar
Academy
(HS)
at
Be it noted, learned
On
Howrah,
directed
the
said
school
Page3
single
Judge
vide
order
dated
Page4
it that the Secretary and the teacher-incharge of the concerned school implement
the order in allowing the petitioner to join her
duties.
Assistant
14.6.2010.
Teacher
Though
with
the
effect
from
appellant
was
she
filed
an
application
for
At this
Page5
Be it
Page6
7
6. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag
Bench
observed
that
the
of
matters
on
merits.
The
dealing
with
the
applications
for
Page7
supposed
to
legalise
injustice
on
Page8
Special
Land
Bangalore2,
Acquisition
Venkatachaliah,
J.
Officer,
(as
his
3
(1962) 2 SCR 762
4
(1969) 1 SCR 1006
5
(1979) 3 SCR 694
6
(1970) 2 SCR 90
Page9
10
the
court
interpolated
of
order
first
instance
and
it
was
was
an
not
Page10
11
9
(1975) 2 SCC 840
10
AIR 1998 SC 3222
11
(1996) 3 SCC 132
12
(1996) 10 SCC 634
Page11
12
10. In this context, we may refer with profit to the
authority
in
Oriental
Aroma
Chemical
limitation
with
the
object
of
it
differently,
the
law
of
limitation
Page12
13
remedy
within
the
stipulated
time.
of
short
duration
and
stricter
Improvement
Trust,
Ludhiana
v.
reference
to
the
principle
stated
in
Page13
14
case
the
Court
referred
to
the
Koppisetti Subba Rao18 and stated thus:25. We may state that even if the term sufficient
cause has to receive liberal construction, it must
squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time
and proper conduct of the party concerned. The
purpose of introducing liberal construction
normally is to introduce the concept of
reasonableness as it is understood in its general
connotation.
26. The law of limitation is a substantive law and
has definite consequences on the right and
obligation of a party to arise. These principles
should be adhered to and applied appropriately
depending on the facts and circumstances of a
given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in
favour of one party as a result of the failure of the
other party to explain the delay by showing
15
(2010) 8 SCC 685
16
AIR 1964 SC 215
17
(1997) 7 SCC 556
18
(2009) 11 SCC 183
Page14
15
in
Municipal
Maniben
Devraj
Corporation
Shah
of
v.
Brihan
in
the
latter
case
no
such
19
(2012) 5 SCC 157
20
(2001) 9 SCC 106
Page15
16
consideration arises.
Judge Bench ruled thus: 23. What needs to be emphasized is that even
though a liberal and justice-oriented approach is
required to be adopted in the exercise of power
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other
similar statutes, the courts can neither become
oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has
acquired certain rights on the basis of the
judgment under challenge and a lot of time is
consumed at various stages of litigation apart from
the cost.
24. What colour the expression sufficient cause
would get in the factual matrix of a given case
would largely depend on bona fide nature of the
explanation. If the court finds that there has been
no negligence on the part of the applicant and the
cause shown for the delay does not lack bona
fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the
other hand, the explanation given by the applicant
is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly
negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would
be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to
condone the delay.
Eventually, the Bench upon perusal of the application
for condonation of delay and the affidavit on record came to
hold that certain necessary facts were conspicuously silent
and, accordingly, reversed the decision of the High Court
which had condoned the delay of more than seven years.
Page16
17
14. In
B.
Madhuri
Reddy21,
the
Goud
Court
v.
B.
referring
Damodar
to
earlier
as
the
explanation
given
in
the
From
the
aforesaid
authorities
the
(ii)
21
(2012) 12 SCC 693
Page17
18
Page18
19
Page19
20
paradigm
founded
on
of
judicial
objective
discretion
reasoning
which
is
not
on
and
individual perception.
(xiii) The
State
or
public
body
or
an
entity
Page20
21
(a)
Page21
22
dealing
with
the
application
for
Court
had
stated
about
the
Page22
23
in
the
to
post
state
and
the
thereafter
grounds
for
Page23
24
Page24
25
19.
much
aware
of
the
order
dated
of
school.
That
apart,
an
It was
Page25
26
20.
the
notice
and
of
the
thereafter
contempt
because
of
and
thereafter,
noted
the
Page26
27
Barring
the
aforesaid,
most
of
the
has
misdirected
itself
by
not
Page27
28
circumstances
the
new
managing
on
the
ground
of
limitation
Page28
29
as
members
or
chosen
as
are
required
to
behave
with
Page29
30
local
status
syndrome.
statutory
Page30
31
Page31
32
..J.
[Anil R. Dave]
New Delhi;
September 13, 2013.
..J.
[Dipak Misra]
Page32