Welcome Guest | Login | Home | Contact Us
Condonation of Delay

Condonation of Delay

by  ,

$ 10.79

Enquire about this book

Available

Usually Ships in 6 Days.

Ships From New York

Free Shipping within U.S.A

International Shipping?

Check Delivery Estimate and Shipping Cost for your country

Book Information

Publisher:Asia Law House
Published In:2005

The Title "Condonation of Delay " is written by P.S. Narayana. This book was published in the year 2005. The publisher of this title is Asia Law House. Condonation of Delay is currently Available with us.

Contents

Chap I : PRELIMINARY :
I. General Analysis
II. Scope of Section :
1. Scope of Sec. 5 2
2. Principles Underlying Sec. 5 3

A. Family Law :
1. The Plea of no Knowledge of the Ex Parte Decree by Wife While Living With the Plaintiff-Husband Speaks of Deliberate Delay

B. Land Law :
1. Sec. 5 of Limitation Act Vis-a-Vis Sec. 78 (2) of the TNLR Act, 1961

C. T.N. Prohibition Act :
1. Commissioner Under the T.N. Prohibition Act is a Statutory Authority-Can Condone the Delay for Sufficient Reasons

III. Liberal Interpretation :
1. Sec. 5-Judicial Discretion-Prosecuting the Case with Due Diligence is Sufficient Cause
2. Sufficient Cause for Condonation of Delay-Courts be Liberal Where Government is the Party-Certain Guidelines/Conditions Issued
3. The Term “Sufficient Cause” Has to be Liberally Construed-One Day’s Delay Can be Condoned on Oral Application
4. Sufficiency of Cause is a Matter for the Consideration of the Courts Below, and Not for High Court in Revision or Writ

A. Arms Act :
1. Sec. 5 Should be Liberally Construed

B. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Liberal Interpretation of Sec. 5 Should Not Affect the Conclusion of Fact
2. Sufficient Cause-Must be to the Satisfaction of the Court
3. Liberal Approach Has to be Given to the Term “Sufficient Cause”

IV. Plea of Limitation :
A. Arbitration Act :
1. A Bar of Limitation May be Considered Even if Such a Plea Has Not Been Specifically Raised

B. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. The Party Who Pleads Should Indicate Reasons Which Prevented Him From Knowing
2. The Plea of Limitation is a Mixed Question of Law and Fact
3. Bona Fide Mistake in Affixing Court Fee-Cannot Bar the Suit by Limitation

V. Each Day’s Delay Has to be Explained :
1. Every Day’s Delay Has to be Explained
2. Post-Limitation Period Requires Explanation for Each Day’s Delay
3. Delay Must be Explained on Day to Day Basis
4. Explanation for Each Day Means Some Reasonable Explanation-Murder is a Sufficient Cause

A. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Delay Caused in Contacting the Appellant by the Counsel in the Lower Court is Not Sufficient Cause in Explaining Each Day’s Delay

B. Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act :
1. Every Day’s Delay Has to be Explained

C. Land Law :
1. Pedantic Approach Shall Not be Insisted for Explaining Each Day’s Delay

D. Motor Vehicles Act :
1. Delay Need Not be Explained With Mathematical Precision

VI. Application for Condonation of Delay :
1. For Condonation of Delay a Formal Application is Not Necessary
2. Condoning the Delay-Liberal Attitude is Not Always Warranted
3. Once an Application for Condonation of Delay is Dismissed no Second Application Lies
4. Reasonable Opportunity Should be Given to the Aggrieved Party Where an Appeal/Application is Filed Without Written Request for Condoning Delay
5. Sec. 5 Does Not Prohibit Filing of an Application for Condonation of Delay After the Limitation Period

A. Arbitration Act :
1. Section 5 Does Not Require Filing of a Written Application to Obtain Relief Thereunder

B. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. If Delay is Explained in the Affidavit Under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC Separate Application for that Purpose is Not Essential
2. Sec. 5-An Application in Writing is Not a Must for Condoning the Delay
3. Absence of a Written Application Cannot Deprive Sec. 5 Benefit
4. Application for Condonation of Delay-Difference Between Sec. 5 of Limitation Act and Sec. 149 of CPC
5. Order XLI, R. 3A CPC-Mandatory-An Appeal if Barred by Time Shall Accompany With an Application Supported by an Affidavit
6. Non-Filing of an Application for Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal is Defective
7. Moving an Application Under Sec. 5 for Condonation of Delay is Always Not Essential if the Affidavit Contains Proper Explanation for Such Delay

C. Co-op. Societies Law :
1. Without Application, Delay Cannot be Condoned

D. Land Laws :
1. Sec. 5 Does Not Necessarily Require a Written Application for Condonation of Delay

E. Motor Vehicles Act :
1. Application Under Sec. 5 Has to be Considered Separately

VII. Court :
A. What/When Amounts to :
1. Court Cannot Enlarge the Time Allowed by Law on Equitable Grounds

a. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Submitting Misleading Affidavit Under Sec. 5-Party Cannot Get Sympathies of the Court
2. Exercise of Discretion by the Court Cannot be Done Unless Valid Ground is Shown-When Allowed

b. Land Law :
1. Sec. 5-Term “Court” Has to be Construed Strictly

c. Tax Law :
1. Madras City Taxation Appellate Tribunal is a “Court” within the Meaning of Sec. 5 of the Act

B. When Does Not Amount to :
a. Indian Electricity Act :
1. Appellate Authority Under the Indian Electricity Act/Rules is Not a Court Within the Meaning of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act

B. Land Law :
1. Land Tribunal Constituted Under Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 is Not a Court

VIII. Decree :
A. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Order Dismissing an Appeal on the Ground of Limitation is Not a Decree
2. An Order Rejecting an Application Under Sec. 5 is Not Appealable
3. Order Dismissing an Appeal After the Dismissal of the Application Under Sec. 5 is Not a Decree
4. An Order Deciding Limitation is Not a Decree

IX. Execution :
A. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Bar Under Sec. 5 Covers Proceedings Germane to an Order Passed Under Order XXI CPC
2. Execution Application Under O. 21, R. 89 CPC Can be Entertained After the Period of Limitation Prescribed Under Art

X. Appeal :
1. Date of Judgment and the Time Required for Obtaining Copy of the Judgment are the Basis for Computing the Limitation
2. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal-In the Absence of Contest by the Respondents, Opportunity Can be Given to Adduce Evidence
3. A Litigant Who Failed to Prefer an Appeal Within Limitation, Cannot Prefer it After Based on a Favourable Ruling by the Supreme Court in Another Case Later
4. An Appeal Against a Dead Person is Still Born-Order 22, Rule 9 of CPC Does Not Apply

A. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Abatement of Appeal-A Prima Facie Evidence of Negligence of the Petitioner or Appellant
2. Ord. 22 CPC Has no Application to Appeals Filed Against Dead Persons
3. Dismissal of Application for Condonation-Not an Appeal But a Revision Lies
4. A Second Appeal Cannot be Competent When an Application Under Order 41, Rule 3-A C.P.C. Read With Sec. 5 of Limitation Act is Dismissed
5. Application for Amending the Memorandum of Appeal for Bringing LRs Shall be Brought Within the Limitation or Within the Time Extended Under Sec. 5
6. In the Absence of an Application for Condonation of Delay-An Appeal Does Not Exist
7. An Appeal Does Not Stand Abated Merely Because the Court Below Makes a Finding that the Deceased Appellant Was a Licensee
8. Condonation of Delay is Not a Matter of Right

B. Co-op. Societies Law :
1. Registrar Has no Power to Entertain a Time Barred Appeal Without There Being Any Specific Prayer There for
2. Order 41, Rule 3-A Does Not Provide Any Limitation Period for Filing an Appeal

XI. Non Discrimination Between Government and Citizen :
1. Litigation by a Government Agency-Different Parameters Can be Adopted in Condoning Delay
2. State Cannot be Treated Differently From any Other Litigant-Factors to be Considered
3. Law of Limitation is the Same for Private Citizens as well as for Governmental Authorities
4. Limitation-State is Like Any Other Litigant Subject to Same Disabilities Like Insufficient Money to Pay Court Fee

A. Arbitration Act :
1. In Government Matters Certain Latitude is Permissible for Condoning the Delay

B. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Condonation of Delay-Law of Limitation Does Not Make Distinction Between Government and Private Litigant
2. Condonation of Delay-State is Not Entitled to Special Treatment

C. Code of Criminal Procedure :
1. State Appeals Against Acquittal-Delay Can be Condoned Liberally

D. Land Law :
1. Government Departments or Statutory Bodies Cannot Claim Condonation of Delay on the Ground of Administrative Follow-Up Procedures
2. No Condonation where at Every Stage the Government Officials Have Been Negligent and Guilty of Inaction

XII. Rights of Minors :
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal by a Minor After Attaining Majority-Grounds

XIII. Legal Representatives :
A. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Bringing L. Rs of the Deceased Opposite Party on Record-Approach to Condonation Has to be Liberal and Judicious
2. Bringing L. Rs on Record Implies Set Aside of Abatement
3. Condonation of Delay of 9 Days After Pooja Vacation for Substitution of LRs is Permissible
4. For Substitution of Legal Heirs Delay Can be Condoned on Showing Sufficient Cause
5. Delayed Submission of the Details of L. Rs. is Sufficient Ground for Condoning Delay
6. A Brother Can be a Legal Representative-Delay Cannot Make the Petition Infructuous
7. Lack of Explanation About the Delay in Bringing L. Rs on Record Abates the Appeal
8. Limitation Under Art. 121 (the Then Art. 171) Starts on the Death of the Respondent and Not on the Date of Appellant’s Knowledge

XIV. Other Aspects :
1. If an Appeal is Filed Based on the Valuation Disclosed in the Judgment/Decree, Bad Faith Cannot be Attributed to the Counsel
2. Erroneous Calculation of Limitation by Court Amounts to Jurisdictional Error
3. Different Dates in the Certified Copy of Judgment-Benefit Should go to the Applicant
4. Distinction Between Sec. 5 and 14
5. Negligence of the Advocate-Attributable to the Client
6. Dismissal of an Appeal on the Ground of Limitation-Merit Shall be a Condition Precedent
7. Sec. 12 (2)-Excludes the Time Between the Pronouncement of the Judgement and the Signing of the Decree

A. Arbitration Act :
1. Section 5 of Limitation Act Does Not Apply to an Application Under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940

B. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Over a Revisional Order the Remedy is Appeal and Not Revision
2. Belated Application for Set Aside of ex Parte Decree for Maintenance, Can be Entertained on Showing Sufficient Cause
3. Rule of Limitation Does Not Apply to a Proceeding for the Recovery of Mesne Profits
4. Question of Limitation Has to be Decided Based on Affidavits and Not on Oral Evidence
5. In the Absence of any Special Provision to Contra, Law of Limitation as Existing on the Date When the Cause of Action is Instituted Applies
6. Dismissal of Suit in the Absence of Sufficient Cause for Non-Appearance is Not Sustainable
7. A Trial Court Should Not Go Into the Merits of an Application Under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, Without Disposing of the Application Under Section 5 of Limitation Act
8. An Application for Substitution Can be Treated as an Application to Set Aside Abatement-Where Time Expires the Right as Well as Remedy to Recover Stands Lost
9. A Second Appeal Lies to High Court Even if the First Appeal is Dismissed as Barred by Limitation
10. Presentation of O. Ps First Time in the Registry is the Date for Reckoning Limitation
11. Inordinate Delay Cannot be Condoned

C. Code of Criminal Procedure :
1. Court Has no Power Under Sec. 5 to Extend the Period of Limitation Prescribed Under Sec. 417(4) Cr. P.C
2. Sec. 5 is an Aid to the Limitation Prescribed Under Sec. 417 (3) Cr. P.C

D. Constitution of India :
1. No period of Limitation for Filing a Writ Petition Under Art. 226-Rule of Laches Applies

E. Electricity (Supply) Act :
1. Recovery of Arrears of Consumer Charges by the Electricity Board-Limitation Does Not Arise

F. Family Law :
1. Sufficient Cause-Scope of

G. Income Tax Act :
1. An Application Under Sec. 66(1) of Income-Tax Act Should be Considered Even if Filed Beyond Time

H. Land Law :
1. Failure of Court to Consider Material on Record for Condonation of Delay is a Material Irregularity
2. A Clog of Limitation is Attached for a Challenge Under Sec. 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (C & PF) Act, 1948
3. The Deputy Director, Consolidation, Can Condone the Delay
4. An order Allowing or Disallowing an Application for Extending Time Can be Interfered in Revision
5. Commissioner, Land Revenue is Not a Revenue Court
6. A Finding of Fact Cannot be Interfered Except on the Grounds Specified in Sec. 100 C.P.C
7. A Declaration Under Sec. 21 (1) of the Land Ceiling Act Must be Made Within the Time Limit

I. Letters Patent :
1. Power of Court to Review its Own Error-Question Limitation Does Not Arise

J. Motor Vehicles Act :
1. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-The Technicalities of Repealed Laws Cannot Stand in the Way of Justice
2. Court Vacations are Not Excluded for Calculating the Period of Limitation, But Will Enable to Tide Over and Perform the Act on The Reopening Day

K. Negotiable Instruments Act :
1. Section 5 of the Limitation Act Has no Application to a Complaint Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

L. Provincial Small Causes Courts Act :
1. Registry of Court to Pointout Defects Well Before the Case is Admitted

M. Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders :
1. Sec. 5 of the Act is a Hard-Task Master

N. Rent Law :
1. Once the Order is Published Averment of Incorrect Date of Knowledge Does Not Sustain
2. Benefit Under Sec. 17-D of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is Not Available to Pre-1969 Amendment Decrees
3. Sec. 22 of the Kerala Rent Control Act Attracts O. 22, R. 9(3) C.P.C

O. Representation of People Act :
1. Substitution Under Sec. 110(3) (c) of the Representation of People Act Beyond the Time is Not Permissible
2. Provisions of C.P.C. do Not Strictly Apply to Election Petition

P. Service Law :
1. Payment of Wages Act-Whether or Not a Claim is in Time Depends Upon its Merits

Chap II : APPLICABILITY :
I. Applicability :
1. Divisional Commissioner is a Revenue Court-Sec. 5 Benefits are Applicable to Appeals Before Him

A. Arbitration Act :
1. Scope-Section 5 of 1963 Act Vis-a-Vis Section 5 of 1908 Act
2. Sec. 5 Applies to Cases Under Sec. 40 (2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940
3. Sec. 5 Applies to Applications Under Arbitration Act
4. Section 5 Applies to File Objection Under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act

B. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Sec. 5 of the Act Applies to an Appeal or Application Other Than One Under Order 21 of C.P.C
2. Sec. 5 is Applicable to the Execution Petitions
3. Sec. 5 is Applicable to Cases Covered by Order 22, Rule 9 (3), CPC
4. Sec. 5 Applies to a Time-Barred Appeal Filed Under Rule 3A of Order 41 CPC
5. Sec. 5-Whether Applies to Pending Cases as on 1.1.1963
6. Sec. 5 is Applicable to an Application Under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 9 of Order XXII of CPC
7. For Seeking Condonation of Delay an Application Has to be Filed

C. Code of Criminal Procedure :
1. Sec. 5 of Limitation Act Applies to a Case Under Sec. 417 Cr. P.C

D. Essential Commodities Act :
1. Sec. 5 Applies to Appeals Filed Under Sec. 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1963

E. Family Law :
1. Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act Applies to Appeals Under Sec. 28 of The Hindu Marriage Act
2. Sec. 5 of the Act Applies to Proceedings Under Chapter III of the Indian Succession Act

F. Insurance Law :
1. Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act Applies to an Application Under the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Act, 1962

G. Land Law :
1. Sec. 5 Applies to Proceedings Under the Land Acquisition Act
2. Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act Applies to an Application Under Sec. 8 of the W.B. Land Reforms Act, 1956
3. Secs. 4 to 24 of the Act are Applicable to Proceedings Under the Assam Land Ceiling Act
4. Sec. 5 Applies to an Appeal Filed Under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act
5. Sec. 5 of the Act Applies to an Application under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887
6. Sec. 5 is Applicable to an Application Under Sec. 13 (3) of the MP Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act
7. Sec. 5-Application to Pending Cases

H. Municipal Law :
1. Sec. 5 of the Act Applies to Cases Falling Under Sec. 504 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act

I. Presidency Small Causes Courts Act :
1. Sec. 5 Applies to an Application Under Sec. 38 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882

J. Provincial Small Cuases Courts Act :
1. Sec. 5 Must be Made Applicable to an Application Under Proviso to Sec. 17 (1)

K. Rent Law :
1. Sec. 5 of the Act Applies to the Deposit of Rent Under Sec. 13 (4) of the Rajasthan R.C.Act
2. Sec. 5 Applies to Appeals Under the T.N.B. (Lease and Rent Control) Act
3. Sec. 5 Applies to an Application Under Sec. 17(2) of the WBPT Act, 1956
4. Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act Applies to an Application Under Sec. 9(1) of the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1922
5. Sec. 5 Applies to an Appeal Under Sec. 23 of the Madras Rent Control Act, 1960
6. Rent Controller Under the A.P. Buildings (LRE) Control Rules is a Court

L. Tax Law :
1. Limitation Act Applies to Cases Falling Under Sec. 29 of UPST Act

II. Non-Applicability :
A. Arbitration Act :
1. Sec. 5 Does Not Apply to Suits Under Sec. 33 of the Arbitration Act
2. Section 5 Does Not Apply to Objections Against an Award Being Made the Rule

B. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Sec. 5 of the Act is Not Applicable to a Suit Filed Under O. 37, C.P.C
2. Sec. 5 Does Not Apply to a Suit
3. Sec. 5 Does Not Apply to Application Under Art. 122 (the Then Art. 163)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure :
1. Sec. 5 of Limitation Act Does Not Apply to a Case Under Sec. 417 (3) and (4) of Cr. P.C
2. Sec. 5 of the 1908 Act is Not Applicable to an Application for Special Leave to Appeal Under Sec. 417 (3) of Cr. P.C. 1898

D. Contempt of Courts Act :
1. Sec. 5 of Limitation Act Does Not Apply to Contempt Proceedings Under the Contempt of Courts Act

E. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act :
1. Section 5 Does Not Apply to Election Petition

F. Karnataka Motor Vehicles Tax Act :
1. Sec. 5 is Not Applicable to Appeals Filed Under Sec. 15 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act

G. Land Law :
1. Sec. 5 is Not Applicable to a Case Under the Kosi Area (Restoration of Lands to Raiyats) Act, 1951
2. Benefit of Sec. 5 of Limitation Act is Not Available to a Case Under Sec. 39 of the U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972
3. Sec. 5 of Limitation Act Does Not Apply to Proceedings Under the A.P (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
4. Collector Under Sec. 93 of A.P. (T.A.) T.A.L. Act is Not a Court-Sec. 5 Benefit is Not Applicable to Proceedings Before Him
5. Sec. 5 Does Not Apply to Applications Under Sec. 20 of the Land Acquisition Act
6. Sec. 5 Cannot be Invoked for Condoning the Delay in a Reference Case Under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
7. Provisions of Sec. 5 of the Act do Not Apply to An Application Under Sec. 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
8. Limitation Act Does Not Apply to Proceedings Before the Consolidation Authorities
9. Sec. 5 Would Not Apply to a Case in the Land Reforms Act
10. Sec. 5 is Not an Aid to Condone the Delay in Filing an Application Under Sec. 20 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act
11. No Limitation for Filing a Revision

H. Motor Vehicles Act :
1. Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is Excluded by Sec. 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
2. Sec. 5 Does Not Apply to a Claim Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
3. Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Excludes the Application of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act
4. Sec. 5 is Not Applicable to an Application Before the RTA Under the Motor Vehicles Act
5. Sec. 5 Being a General Provision Cannot Prevail Over Special Provisions Under Sec. 166(3) of the M.V. Act

I. Negotiable Instruments Act :
1. The Benefit Under Sec. 5 of the Act is Not Applicable to a Complaint Under Sec. 142 of the N.I. Act

J. Panchayat & Municipal Law :
1. Provisions of Sec. 5 do Not Apply to a Municipal Election Petition
2. Sec. 5 Does Not Apply to Election Petitions Under U.P. Panchayat Act
3. Sec. 5 Benefit is Not Available to an Application Under Rule 17 of the Mysore Village Panchayat Rules, 1959

K. Rent Law :
1. Sec. 5 Has no Application to a Case Under Sec. 11 (c) or S. 23 (1)(i) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act
2. Rule 44 of the Kerala High Court Rules Does Not Prescribe Period of Limitation-No Application Under Sec. 5 is Required
3. Sec. 5 Does Not Apply to Appeal Before the Appellate Authority Under the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act is Not “Court”
4. Authority Under the Kerala Rent Control Act is Not a Court

L. Representation of People’s Act :
1. Sec. 5 Has no Application to Election Petitions
2. Election Petition-Legal Advice-When Amounts to Bona Fide-Sec. 5 Has no Application
3. Provisions of the Limitation Act are Not Applicable to the Proceedings Under the R.P. Act

M. Service Law :
1. Sec. 5 Benefit is Not Available to an Order of Termination Issued by a School Management

Chap III : CONDONATION OF DELAY :
I. Powers of Courts :
1. Condonation of Delay Rests on the Reasonable Discretion of the Court
2. A Petition Under Sec. 5 of the Act Can be Considered by the Rent Control Court on Merits
3. Condonation of Delay-Discretion of the Court Should Not be Discriminatory Between the Government and a Private Litigant

A. Advocate’s Act :
1. Courts Should be Liberal in Condoning the Delay

B. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Condonation of Delay-High Court’s Power Under Sec. 115 C.P.C
2. Court Has Discretion in Condoning the Delay for Cogent Reasons are Made Out
3. Presentation of a Plaint After Court Hours on the Last Day of Limitation Can be Accepted if Not too Inconvenient to the Judge
4. Where Public Money is Involved, Court Can to Show Some Indulgence in Considering Claims
5. Delay Can be Condoned for Mistakes of Counsel Made Bona Fide and in Good Faith
6. Amendment to the Relief Clause of Plaint for Including One More Defendant for Initial Accounting Can be Allowed
7. In an Ex Parte Order, Court Has Discretion to Condone the Delay Having Regard to Whether an Opportunity Was Given to the Respondent
8. A Time-Barred Application for Set Aside Ex Parte Decree Cannot be Allowed
9. In the Case of Appeal, an Amendment Can be Permitted Even Beyond the Period of Limitation on Showing Sufficient Cause
10. Rule 3A of Order 41 CPC Cannot Repeal the Power of Court to Condone the Delay Under Limitation Act/Delhi Rent Control Act
11. High Court Not to Interfere Under Section 115 in the Order Passed to Condone the Delay
12. Abatement of Suit-Application for Impleadment-Approach of Court Should be Liberal

C. Constitution of India :
1. Certificate Under Art. 133(1) (b) of the Constitution Cannot be Granted for Filing Appeal to Condoning the Delay

D. Education Law :
1. After Deciding the Issue on Merits Court Can Condone One Day’s Delay

E. Land Law :
1. Condonation of Delay is at the Discretion of Court or Tribunal

F. Motor Vehicles Act :
1. Discretion of the Court in Condoning the Delay Must be Objective and Based on Sound Reasoning
2. Under the M.V. Act, Condonation of Delay in an Appeal is Within the Discretion of Rule Making Authority

G. Rent Law :
1. Ordinarily the View of the Court Based on Facts on an Application Under Sec. 5 Shall Not be Interfered Unless it Leads to Miscarriage of Justice

H. Service Law :
1. Labour Court Has no Jurisdiction to Excuse the Delay Beyond the Period Specified Under Sec. 5

II. Delay : When Can be Condoned :
A. Family Law :
1. A Preliminary Objection Cannot be Raised When the Court Has Condoned the Delay in Filing an Appeal

B. Motor Vehicles Act :
1. Condonation of Delay-Knowledge About the Death of the Respondent After Return of Notice is Sufficient Cause

C. Provincial Insolvency Act :
1. Delay in Filing an Application Under Sec. 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 Can be Condoned Under Sec. 78 (1)

D. Railways Act :
1. Delay Can be Condoned Where Public Interest and Public Funds are Involved

A. Bona Fide Reasons :
a. Code of Civil Procedure
1. Delay Can be Condoned for Bona Fide Reasons

b. Land Law :
1. Condonation Can be Allowed if There is no Palpable Negligence in Filing an Appeal

c. Soldier’s Litigation Act :
1. While Seeking Condonation of Delay, the Petitioner Should Come with Clean Hands

B. Other Reasons :
a. General
1. Mistake of Law is no Excuse for Condoning the Delay
2. Condonation of Delay-Law Helps the Vigilant and Not the Indolent
3. Delay of 266 Days in Filing Writ Appeal Can be Condoned Based on Medical Certificate
4. Condonation of Delay for Satisfactory Explanation-Hyper-Technical Approach Should Not to be Followed Where the Applicants are Helpless Women
5. Delay Can be Condoned Where the Facts of Case Justify it
6. Delay Caused Due to the Acts of Respondent Can be Condoned
7. For Condoning Delay There Must be Sufficient Cause
8. Delay Need Not Necessarily be Condoned in Every Case
9. Administrative Exigencies-No Straight Jacket Formula for Condoning the Delay
10. Delay Caused Due to the Omission of Respondents Can be Condoned
11. The Time Elapsed Between the Date of Calling for Stamps and the Date of Furnishing Stamps After Restoration of Copy Application Can be Condoned

b. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Intervening Circumstances Leading to Dismissal of Suit for Default are Sufficient Causes
2. Condonation of Delay and Restoration of Suit-When Can be Allowed
3. Court Can Condone the Delay in Special Circumstances of the Case
4. Lack of Knowledge About the Counsel Engaged by the Deceased Appellants is Not a Ground for Condoning the Delay
5. When Properly Explained Delay Can be Condoned
6. Appeal to Set Aside Ex Parte Divorce Decree-Illiteracy of Wife is a Sufficient Cause for Condoning the Delay
7. Stranger to a Proceeding-Need Not Seek Condonation
8. Where Memo of Appeal Was Entertained Without a Copy of the Decree, and Was Admitted Later on Production of the Copy, Delay Can be Condoned

c. Land Law :
1. Delay Caused Due to Non-Action of the Authority Under the Land Acquisition Act for Reference Can be Condoned

C. Procedural Delay :
a. Motor Vehicles Act :
1. Official Procedural Delay Can be a Ground for Condoning Delay Subject to Payment of Costs
2. The Court Passing the Judgment Has no Jurisdiction to Grant Time for Filing Appeal

D. Sufficient Cause/Proper Explanation :
1. What Can Amount to an Unexplained Delay in the Disposal of Representation of a Detenu Depends Upon the Facts and Circumstances of Each Case

a. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. “Sufficient Cause” is a Condition-Precedent to Condone Delay
2. Condonation of Delay is at the Discretion of the Court
3. Reasons Given for Condoning the Delay Should Necessarily be Recorded
4. Disposal of Proceedings Without Providing Opportunity is Sufficient Ground to Condone the Delay
5. Where There is Sufficient Material to Show “Sufficient Cause” Condonation of Delay Can be Allowed
6. Delay Condonation Petition Cannot be Dismissed When Sufficient Cause is Explained

b. Land Law :
1. Non Joinder of the Necessary Party and Suppression of Facts are Sufficient Grounds for Condonation of Delay
2. Delay Can be Condoned Where the Petition is Filed Under the Land Acquisition Act Explaining the Reasons

c. Motor Vehicles Act :
1. Delay Can be Condoned for Sufficient Reasons

d. Service Law :
1. Sec. 15 (2) of Payment of Wages Act-Delay Can be Condoned on Showing Sufficient Cause

e. Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act :
1. Sec. 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 is Not in Conflict With Sec. 21 of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act

E. Prosecution of Proceedings Before Other Forums :
1. Where a Litigation Undergoes Several Rounds 5 Days Delay in Filing an Appeal Can be Condoned

a. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Delay Caused Due to Pursuing C.R.P. Can be Condoned
2. The Period Spent in Prosecuting the Review Application Bona Fide Requires to be Excluded in Computing the Limitation
3. Prosecution of Case in Another Court is a Sufficient Ground for Condoning Delay

b. Co-Operative Societies Act :
1. Prosecution of Proceedings Before Other Forums in Good Faith and With Diligence is a Ground for Condonation of Delay

c. Land Law :
1. Delay Caused Due to Precrastination in the Processing of Matter Can be Condoned

F. Counsel’s Default, etc :
1. A Litigant Cannot be Punished for the Default of the Person Conducting the Case
2. Absence of Communication by Counsel in Lower Court to the Advocate on Record-Party’s Right Cannot be Defeated on Such Delay
3. Where the Mistake is Not Attributable to the Party But to the Counsel Delay Can be Condoned
4. A Litigant Should Not Suffer for the Mistake/Negligence of His Counsel
5. Condonation of Delay-Parties Should Not Suffer for the Mistakes Committed by Advocates/Officers of Public Field
6. Due Care and Attention of a Counsel is Not Synonymous With Omniscience-Honestly Not Knowing Certain Authority-Does Not Amount to Negligence of the Counsel
7. Delay Caused Due to Wrong Legal Advice is Not Fatal
8. Ignorance of Death of Defendant if Proved is a Sufficient Cause for Condonation of Delay
9. Conflicting Legal Advices for Filing Appeal-Sufficient Ground for Condoning the Delay
10. Negligence on the Part of Counsel-Condonation of Delay Can Not be Allowed
11. In the Absence of Latches on the Part of the Petitioner, Delay Caused by Mistake of the Counsel is Sufficient Cause
12. Mistake of Counsel by Itself is Not Always a Ground for Condoning the Delay
13. Legal Advice-Criteria for Considering as a Sufficient Ground for Condoning the Delay
14. Acting in Good Faith on a Mistaken Legal Advice-is a Sufficient Ground for Condoning Delay

a. Land Law :
1. One Day’s Delay Caused Due to Mistake of Law by the Counsel-Can be Condoned

b. Motor Vehicles Act :
1. An Order Condoning the Delay Does Not Amount to An Award, and is Not Appealable

c. Punjab Pre-Emption Act :
1. Bona Fide Mistake of Counsel is a Sufficient Ground to Condone the Delay

G. Ill-Health/Medical Treatment :
a. Code of Civil Procedure :

1. Treatment for Infective Hepatitis is Sufficient Ground for Condoning the Delay
2. Ill-Health is Sufficient Cause for Condoning the Delay

b. Motor Vehicles Act :
1. Delay Caused in Obtaining Papers for the Claimt-Can be Condoned

H. On Payment of Costs :
1. Delay Can be Condoned on Payment of Costs in Certain Cases
2. Condonation of Delay With Instructions to Costs
3. In the Absence of Sufficient Cause Court Cannot Condone Delay on Payment of Costs

a. Arbitration Act :
1. Delay Can be Condoned on the Payment of Costs

Chap IV : NO CONDONATION OF DELAY :
I. Delay : When Can't be Condoned :
1. Extraordinary Delay Cannot be Condoned
2. Non-Availability of Funds to Obtain Certified Copies is Not a Sufficient Cause
3. Court Cannot Condone Delay While Exercising its Inherent Powers Under Sec. 151 CPC
4. Delay of 42 Days in Filing the Suit After the Dismissal of Writ Petition Cannot be Condoned

a. Arbitration Act :
1. Delay Cannot be Condoned Where the Petitioner is Not Diligent in Filing the Application in Time
2. Intensive Departmental Discussion-Cannot be a Ground for Condonation

b. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Omission to Explain the Delay in Paying the Court-Fee Etc-Condonation Cannot be Allowed
2. Condonation of Delay Cannot be Denied on the Ground That the Deceased Was a Prominent Person and His Death Was Published in Newspapers
3. Condonation of Delay Cannot Be Allowed Based on An Earlier Decision in Which Facts Relevant in the Present Case Are Not Covered
4. Delay Cannot be Condoned for False and Concocted Causes
5. In the Absence of Proper Explanation, Cannot be Condoned
6. Delay Cannot be Condoned in the Absence of Pragmatic Reasons
7. Delay of 14 Years Caused Despite Findings of Different Courts in Bringing the Lrs-Cannot be Condoned for Want of Bona Fides
8. No Condonation if There are Mala Fides on the Part of the Applicant
9. An Ex Parte Order Not Being Explicit Cannot be Taken to be An Order Condoning the Limitation Impliedly
10. Failure to Re-Present Interlocutory Applications As Required By the Office of Court for 4 Years-Delay Cannot be Condoned
11. Deliberate Delay Cannot be Condoned

c. Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 :
1. Delay Cannot be Condoned Where the Facts are Incorrect

d. Family Law :
1. Delay Cannot be Condoned for Vague Causes

e. Land Law :
1. Acceptance of Revisional Application Cannot be Construed As Condonation of Delay
2. Delay Cannot be Condoned if Deficit Court Fee is Not Paid in Time
3. Condonation of Delay-When Cannot be Allowed

f. Rent Law :
1. Lack of Seriousness or Bona Fides Deprives the Benefit of Condonation
2. Abnormal Delay Without Sufficient Cause Deprives the Benefit of Condonation

g. Service Law :
1. Delay Caused Due to the Negligence of Courier Cannot be Condoned in the Absence of Supporting Affidavit by Courier

h. Specific Relief Act :
1. Unexplained Delay Deprives the Relief of Specific Performance

A. Counsel’s Default, etc :
a. General :
1. Failure of Counsel to File Objection to Commissioner’s Report Inspite of Court’s Reminder Condonation Cannot be Allowed
2. Carelessness of Advocate and His Client-Delay Cannot be Condoned
3. Mistake of Counsel When Not Bona Fide-Benefit of Period of Limitation Cannot be Extended

b. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Negligence of the Counsel Amounts to Negligence of the Appellant

B. No Sufficient Cause/no Proper Explanation is Shown :
a. General :
1. Administrative Delay on the Part of the Government is Not a Sufficient Cause for Condoning the Delay
2. Delay Cannot be Condoned When no Sufficient Cause is Shown
3. Delay Cannot be Condoned Where the Applicant is Not Diligent
4. In the Absence of Proper Explanation Delay Cannot be Condoned
5. Mistake Caused Due to Reckless and Negligent Act is Not Sufficient Cause
6. Belated Submission of Application for Certified Copy-Without Proper Explanation no Condonation
7. No Proper Explanation-No Condonation
8. Leisurely Inter-Departmental Consultations Do Not Amount to Sufficient Cause
9. Delay in Obtaining Certified Copies-Cannot be Condoned Without Sufficient Cause
10. No Sufficient Cause, no Condonation

B. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Benefit of Sec. 5 is Not Available Where the Delay is Not Explained Satisfactorily
2. False Explanation-No Condonation
3. False Explanation-Disentitles the Benefit of Sec. 5
4. No Sufficient Cause-No Condonation of Delay
5. Unexplained Inordinate Delay Cannot be Condoned
6. Failure to Obtain Certified Copy of the Judgment Within the Time Given by Court-Without any Explanation Condonation Cannot be Granted
7. Abatement Dismissal Can be Set Aside Only on Proof of Sufficient Cause
8. Gross Negligence and Inaction in Bringing the Lrs on Record and in Seeking Set Aside the Abatement-Delay Cannot be Condoned
9. Negligent and Illegal Acts Deprive the Benefit of Sec. 5
10. No Explanation, no Condonation
11. Interim Stay Cannot be Granted When There is Unexplained Delay
12. Eight Days’ Delay in Obtaining the Certified Copy is Not Inordinate Delay
13. No Condonation if the Appeal Relating to Matters are Filed After the Amendment of the Decree
14. Lack of Explanation for Non-Issue of Fresh Summons of Writ-Does Not Allow Condonation Of Delay
15. No Condonation of Delay When Explanation is Not Satisfactory

C. Code of Criminal Procedure :
1. No Sufficient Cause-no Condonation of Delay

D. Family Law :
1. No Explanation for Delay-No Condonation
2. False Affidavit Explaining the Delay Cannot Help in Condoning the Delay
3. No Satisfactory Explanation-No Condonation of Delay
4. Remaining ex Parte After Taking Due Notice Invalidates the Application for Condonation of Delay

E. Land Law :
1. Absence of Satisfactory Explanation Does Not Permit Condonation
2. An Application for Condonation Made With Misstatements and Without Satisfactory Explanation Cannot Sustain

f. Letters Patent, A.P :
1. Delay Cannot be Condoned in the Absence of Proper Explanation

G. Motor Vehicles Act :
1. No Condonation of Delay in the Absence of Satisfactory Explanation
2. No Explanation, no Condonation of Delay
3. Irrespective of its Merits Where the Case is Dealt with Carelessly or Casually-Delay Cannot be Condoned

H. West Bengal Entertainments and Luxuries (Hotel and Restaurants) Tax Act, 1972 :
1. No Condonation-No Proper Explanation

Chapter V :SUFFICIENT CAUSE :
I. Sufficient Cause-What/When Amounts to :
a. General :
1. “Sufficient Cause”-Certain Summarised Guidelines
2. Delay of One Day Caused in Arranging Funds is Sufficient Cause
3. Existence of Sufficient Cause is a Condition Precedent to Grant or Refuse Extension of Time
4. Illiteracy is a Sufficient Ground
5. Sec. 5-“Sufficient Cause”-The Question Shall be “why Not to Condone”
6. Absence of Negligence is Sufficient Cause
7. “Sufficient Cause”-Envisages Bona Fides
8. Pendency of Writ Petition on the Same Cause of Action is a Sufficient Cause for Condoning the Delay
9. Pitiable Conditions of the Appellant Can be Sufficient Ground
10. Absence of Mala Fides is a Sufficient Cause
11. Taking of Leave and Posting of a New Legal Remembrancer in the Place of His Predecessors are Sufficient Grounds
12. Guidelines to Approach the Problem of Sufficient Cause

b. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. The Test of Sufficient Cause is Individualistic and Not an Objective test
2. Misfiling of Relevant Papers with the File of a Different Case is a Sufficient Cause
3. Taking Proceedings Bona Fide and Prosecuting the Same Diligently is Sufficient Cause
4. Loss of Summons in Transit Within the Government Department After Receipt Thereof is a “Sufficient Cause”
5. Enquiries Made to Ascertain the Death of the Respondents is a Sufficient Cause
6. Stay of Suits while First Appeal in High Court Was Pending, is a Sufficient Ground
7. Passing of an Order Before the Service of Summons is a Sufficient Ground for Condoning the Delay
8. Ignorance of the Death of the Respondent is a Sufficient Cause to Condone the Delay in Substituting the LRs
9. What Amounts to “Preliminary Decree” Under Sec. 2(2) CPC and “Sufficient Cause” Under Sec. 5 of Limitation Act
10. Amendment to the Act Conferring the Right to Move the Court is a Sufficient Cause
11. Mistake of Counsel is a Sufficient Cause
12. While the Decision to File an Appeal is Taken Well Within the Time Delay Caused in the Hands of Subordinate Officers of the Legal Remembrancer, is Sufficient Cause
13. Belated Knowledge About Passing of Judgement Ex Parte is a Sufficient Cause to Condone Delay
14. The Circumstances Specified in Sec. 14 are Sufficient Causes for Condoning the Delay
15. Establishment of Sufficient Cause-There Should be no Distinction Between Government Departments or Private Individuals
16. “Sufficient Cause” Should be Reasonably Construed Based on Facts But Not Liberally
17. Lack of Knowledge as to the Date of Appearance is a Sufficient Cause
18. Changing of Already Fixed Date for Taking Evidence Without Knowledge of Defendants is a Sufficient Cause

c. Code of Criminal Procedure :
1. Prosecuting Proceedings Before the Sessions Court Under The Directions of The High Court Under Revision is a Sufficient Cause
2. “Sufficient Cause”-the Event Must Arise Within The Period of Limitation

d. Constitution of India :
1. The Phrase “Sufficient Cause” Has Never Been Defined Precisely-it Depends Upon Facts of Each Case

e. Land Law :
1. Non-Service of Notice (Form 23 of Upch Act) is a “Sufficient Cause”

f. Motor Vehicles Act :
1. “Sufficient Cause” for Condonation of Delay Under The Motor Vehicles Act-When Amounts to-An Instance

g. Rent Law :
1. Illness of the Appellant is a “Sufficient Cause”
2. Exigencies of Service of the Respondent Employee, is a Sufficient Cause

h. Sikkim Debt Laws, 1910 :
1. Lack of Knowledge of Sikkim Debt Laws, 1910-an Unpublished Law, by the Lawyer is a “Sufficient Cause”

A. Counsel’s Mistake, etc :
a. General :
1. Filing of Appeal With Two Days’ Delay by The Counsel Being Misled by His Client, A Bona Fide Mistake is Sufficient Cause
2. Bona Fide Mistake of An Advocate is a Sufficient Cause
3. Misplacement of Original Certified Copy By The Clerk of The Counsel is a “Sufficient Ground”
4. Inadvertance of The Counsel or His Clerk is a Sufficient Cause
5. Wrong Legal Advice Given With Due Care and Attention is a Sufficient Cause for Condoning the Delay

b. Arbitration Act :
1. Mistaken Legal Advice Based Upon a Bona Fide But Erroneous Opinion As to Law Which is Not Settled or Clear is a Sufficient Cause
2. Lawyers’ Counselling for Drafting the Appeal Without Any Negligence or Laches on Their Part Can Be a Sufficient Ground

c. Code of Civil Procedure
1. Bona Fide Mistake of Counsel is Sufficient Cause
2. Ignorance of Lawyer May Be a “Sufficient Cause” and a Special Ground in Certain Cases
3. “Sufficient Cause” Should Be Liberally Interpreted-for The Lapses of The Advocate Litigant Should Not Be Made to Suffer
4. Negligence or Failure of the Counsel to Inform About The Passing of An Ex Parte Decree is Sufficient Cause

d. Motor Vehicles Act :
1. Condonation of Delay-for The Fault of Lawyers Poor Claimants Cannot Be Penalised

B. Ill-Health, etc :
a. General
1. Illness May Be “Sufficient Cause”
2. Suffering With Hypertension and Heart Disease-is Sufficient Cause
3. Undertaking Treatment for Typhoid and Cirrhosis of Liver-is Sufficient Cause
4. “Sickness” is a Sufficient Cause to Condone 3 Days’ Delay

b. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Bed Rest on the Advice of the Doctor is a Sufficient Cause for Condoning Delay
2. Illness Preventing Obtaining Certified Copy is a Sufficient Cause
3. Illness is a Sufficient Cause for Condoning the Delay

c. Code of Criminal Procedure :
1. Attack of Jaundice and Lung Disease is a Sufficient Cause

C. Pursuing a Remedy in Wrong Court, etc :
1. Prosecuting Appeal on The Ground of Legal Advice While a Revision is Competent is Not a Valid Ground to Get Over the Bar of Limitation

a. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Pursuing the Remedy in a Wrong Court is a Sufficient Cause
2. Prosecuting a Review Petition is Not a Sufficient Ground
3. Benefit of sec. 5 is Available Where the Appeal is Prosecuted Bona Fide in a Wrong Court

b. Land Law :
1. Limitation in Filing Appeal-Period Spent in Prosecuting the Revision Before The Settlement Officer is Excludable and is a Sufficient Cause

c. Railway Laws :
1. Pursuing a Matter in a Wrong Court, Under a Bona Fide Mistake Can Be Considered to Be a Sufficient Cause

D. Procedural Delay :
1. Delay in Scrutiny and Return of The Memo of Appeal By Officials of Court is Sufficient Cause
2. Zig-Zag Course of the Proceedings Can Often Be a Sufficient Cause
3. Delay Due to Processing the Case in Filing An Appeal is a Sufficient Cause
4. Procedural Delay Incidental to The Decision-Making Process Being Implicit in The Nature Of Governmental Functioning is a Sufficient Cause
5. Holding Up With Many Arbitration Cases By the Advocate-General’s Office is Not a Sufficient Cause
6. Appellant’s Plea of Busy All Along With His Official Work is Not a Sufficient Cause
7. “Administrative Delay” is Not a Sufficient Cause By any Standard
8. Tracing of the Missing File is Not a Sufficient Cause

a. Arbitration Act :
1. Delay in Obtaining Sanction From Government is Not Sufficient Cause

II. Sufficient Cause-When Does Not Amount to :
a. General :
1. Delay if Can be Avoided by Taking Due Care, Will Not Come Within the Ambit of “Sufficient Cause”
2. Delay That Could Be Avoided By Due Care and Attention Cannot Constitute Sufficient Cause
3. Delay Caused Due to Obtaining Government Permission and the Strike Observed in the High Court-Not Sufficient Cause
4. A Mere Allegation That Government is Unable to Ascertain Information About The Death of a Defendant/Respondent in Time is Not Sufficient Cause
5. Non-Filing of Appeal on the Ground That It May Obstruct Settlement Talks-Not a Sufficient Cause
6. Whatever is Not a Sufficient Ground in Case of a Private Person Cannot Also Be a Sufficient Ground in Case of the Government
7. Walking Out of the Court on Forming An Impression That The Order of Court Was Against the Appellant is Not a Sufficient Cause
8. Bona Fide Persuasion of Another Remedy-Not a Sufficient Cause
9. A Housewife is Not Expected TO Know The Technicalities of Limitation-Cannot Be a Sufficient Ground
10. Illness is Not a ‘Sufficient Cause’

b. Arbitration Act :
1. Inter-Departmental Consultation Wil Not Constitute “Sufficient Cause”
2. Collusion of the Entire Staff in Not Supplying the Copy of Order is Not a Sufficient Cause

c. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Delay Caused Due to Going Over to Delhi for Filing Slp is Not a Sufficient Cause
2. Non-Making Up of Mind to File An Appeal is Not Sufficient Ground
3. Delay Caused Due to Obtaining Approval of Higher Authority is Not Sufficient Cause

d. Indian Penal Code :
1. Processing, Consolidating and Obtaining Sanction is Not a Sufficient Cause

e. Land Law :
1. Absence of Proper Legal Advice By The Counsel is Not Sufficient Cause
2. Mere Ignorance of Law Relating to Limitation is Not Sufficient Cause
3. Wrong Information About the Practice of The Supreme Court is Not a Sufficient Cause
4. Delay Caused Due to Administrative Decision Making and the Strike By the High Court Bar-Not Sufficient Cause

f. Motor Vehicles Act :
1. Misplacement of Concerned File in Office Without Disclosure of Full Fact is Not a Sufficient Cause

A. Counsel's Mistake, Etc :
1. Mistake of Counsel Cannot Be a Rule of Law for Extension of Time
2. Legal Advice-When Does Not Amount to Sufficient Cause for Condoning Delay
3. Where the Petitioner Has Knowledge of the Ex Parte Order the Plea of Wrong Advice of Lawyer Cannot Be a Sufficient Ground
4. Ground of Wrong Information About the Practice of the Supreme Court is Not a Sufficient Cause

a. Code of Civil Procedure :
1. Wrong Impression of Counsel About the Correct Legal Position is Not a Sufficient Cause
2. Ex Parte Decree Due to Non-Appearance of Counsel-The Principle That for Negligence of a Lawyer Parties Should Not Suffer Does Not Apply in All Cases

b. Industrial Law :
1. Condonation of Delay-Not Knowing The Exact Date of Posting, Obtaining Legal Opinion Followed By Parliament Elections-Not a Sufficient Cause

c. Rent Law :
1. Legal Advice Given Negligently and Without Due Care By The Lawyer is Not Sufficient Cause

B. Ill Health :
1. Production of Unconvincing Medical Certificate-is Not Sufficient Ground for Condonation of Delay

List Of Appendix

1. The Limitation Act, 1963
2. Subject Index

Book Reviews by Users
Book Reviews of Condonation of Delay
Have you read this book?
Be the first to rate it

 
Write a Review