Skip to main content

‘Delay’ not to be condoned merely because the applicant is the State

The Government, being the largest litigant, has to be a model and ideal litigant, a division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justices S.C. Dharmadhikari and Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi has observed while refusing to condone the delay by the Government in preferring Appeals.  The Bench also observed that merely because applicant is a State, delay in filing appeals cannot be condoned without a proper explanation as Section 5 of the Limitation Act is equally applicable to the State as well. The reasons of delay stated in notice of motion, filed by Government read “”the delay is due to various factum, especially, related to procedural mandate in Government functioning, which were not in the control of the Applicant-Appellant“. In another notice of motion filed, the delay was attributed to “the various internal correspondence of the Revenue Department with its superior authorities, for seeking permission to file the Appeal” Observing that there is no ‘sufficient cause’ stated to excuse the delay, the Court observed: “Absolutely no cause is given, as such, for condonation of delay and that of about 548 days in preferring the Appeals, except for attributing the same to the specious plea of “various factors”. Which were those factors is not at all stated or illustrated. Merely stating that, “those factors relate to procedural mandates in Government functioning, which was not in control of the Appellant”, cannot be sufficient, even accepting that, in litigations to which the Government is a party, there are some aspects, which perhaps cannot be ignored and those factors and aspects are required to be stated.” The Court further said: “We are also aware that certain amount of latitude in cases where Government is a litigant, is not impermissible, as the State represents collective cause of the community and what ultimately suffers is public interest, necessitating adoption of pragmatic approach to do substantive justice. However, in case of gross delay and inaction, it becomes difficult to put a State on high pedestal, so as to be immune to the consequences of the inaction. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove sufficient cause.” In this context, the bench observed: “As a matter of fact, the Government, being the largest litigant, has to be a model and ideal litigant. The sheer and gross negligence on the part of the Government in preferring such Appeals cannot be condoned in this manner, as a routine or as a right of the Government, and that too to unearth the cause which is already set at rest.” Dismissing the petitions observing that if they are allowed, it will set a bad precedent and may encourage the Revenue in the ‘dilly dallying tactic’, the court observed: “a delay can hardly be explained by attributing the same merely to the functioning of the Government and internal correspondence.”

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/govt-model-ideal-litigant-delay-not-condoned-merely-applicant-state-bombay-hc/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376
2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551
3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467
4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298
5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567)



5.The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii)Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a)Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b)Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii)Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv)Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v)Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects…

Delay - condon - limitation

The proof by sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of the extraordinary restriction vested in the court. What counts is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency of the cause and shortness of the delay is one of the circumstances to be taken into account in using the discretion.

Supreme Court of India
State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005
Author: A Pasayat
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia
           CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.)  484 of 2005

PETITIONER:
State of Nagaland

RESPONDENT:
Lipok AO & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/04/2005

BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 4612 of 2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

The State of Nagaland questions correctness of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench refusing to condone the delay by rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 'Limitation Act') and conseque…

Passport - DRT - power to impound - High Court

1) Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D.Ramarathnam. Asst. Passport Officer, 1967 (3) SCR 52
2) Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248
3) Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. Grapco Industries Ltd., (1994) 4 SCC 710
4) Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2008 (3) SCC 674
5) Damji Valaji Shah & another Vs. L.I.C. of India & others [AIR 1966 SC 135]
6) Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & others [1999 (7) SCC 76]
7) Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1999 SC 3125]
8) Sanjeev R.Apte v. I.F.C.I. Ltd., and others, 2008 (154) DLT 77
9) Smt.Annai Jayabharathi v. The Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr., CDJ 2005 Ker HC 171
10) Allahabad Bank v. Radhakrishna Maity, AIR 1999 SC 3426
11) Ramalinga v. Radha, 2011 (4) CTC 481
12) Sinnaswami Chettiar v. Aligi Goundan and others, AIR 1924 Madras 893 (OVERRULED)
13) Nallagatti Goundan v. Ramana Gounda and others, AIR 1925 Madras 170
14) Income Tax Officer v. M.K.Mohammad…