Tag: Condonation of Delay

Supreme Court Rules: “Right to Prefer an Appeal” Includes “Right to Prosecute it” for Victims
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: “Right to Prefer an Appeal” Includes “Right to Prosecute it” for Victims

The Supreme Court held that the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC includes the right to prosecute it. Consequently, upon the death of the original appellant-victim, their legal heir is entitled to be substituted to continue the appeal. The definition of ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) CrPC is broad and inclusive, enabling such substitution to ensure the right of access to justice is not defeated. Facts Of The Case: On December 9, 1992, an attack occurred in which Virendra Singh was killed, and informant Tara Chand (PW-1) and his son Khem Singh (PW-3) were injured. The Sessions Court convicted accused Ashok, Pramod, and Anil @ Neelu, sentencing them to life imprisonment, but acquitted six other accused. The convicted accused appealed to the High Court, which, vi...
Supreme Court Rejects Delay Condonation in Property Dispute: No Second Chance for Delay “Limitation Act”
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rejects Delay Condonation in Property Dispute: No Second Chance for Delay “Limitation Act”

The Supreme Court ruled that repeated applications for condonation of delay under different procedural provisions (Order IX Rule 13 and Order XLI Rule 3A CPC) cannot be entertained when the same grounds were already rejected in earlier rounds. Emphasizing strict adherence to limitation laws, the Court held that finality of judicial orders must prevail over belated challenges, and litigants cannot abuse process by re-agitating identical delay explanations. The judgment reaffirmed that Section 14 of the Limitation Act doesn’t apply where prior delay condonation pleas were dismissed on merits. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a 2015 sale agreement between the appellant (Thirunagalingam) and respondent No. 1 (Lingeswaran) concerning property in Nainarkoil village. When the responden...
Supreme Court Clarifies IBC Appeal Deadlines: No Delay Condonation Beyond 45 Days
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies IBC Appeal Deadlines: No Delay Condonation Beyond 45 Days

The Supreme Court held that appeals under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) must strictly adhere to the 30-day limitation period, extendable by only 15 days upon showing "sufficient cause." The NCLAT cannot condone delays beyond this 45-day window, as the IBC’s time-bound framework overrides equitable considerations. Facts Of The Case: Tata Steel’s resolution plan for Rohit Ferro-Tech Ltd. was approved by the NCLT on 07.04.2022. Respondent No. 1, a minority shareholder, filed an appeal before the NCLAT on 23.05.2022 (e-filing) and 24.05.2022 (physical filing), seeking condonation of a 15-day delay. The NCLAT allowed the delay, citing Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the 30-day period ended on a court holiday (08.05.2022, a Sunday). Tata Steel challenged t...