Prejudice - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Overturns 11-Year Delay Condonation, Sets New Precedent on Limitation Law

1Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Overturns 11-Year Delay Condonation, Sets New Precedent on Limitation Law

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that the expression "within such period" in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 requires a party to explain the delay for the entire period from when the limitation period commenced until the actual filing date, not just the period after the limitation expired. It overrules the narrower interpretation in Rewa Coalfields and aligns with the view that "sufficient cause" must be shown for the full duration of the delay, emphasizing that the State is not entitled to preferential treatment in condonation matters. Facts Of The Case: The case originates from a dispute over a parcel of land. The appellant, Shivamma, became the absolute owner of the land, including a 4-acre portion, through a compromise decree in 1989. However, the Karnataka Housing Board (...

Marksheet Tampering Case: Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction, Criticizes Lack of Forensic Proof

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's authorship of the alleged forgery beyond a reasonable doubt. The absence of expert evidence on handwriting, lack of proof of exclusive custody of the documents, and the failure to establish mens rea were fatal to the case. The court also noted prejudicial non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a student pursuing a Bachelor of Social Work, had failed her compulsory English paper in the 1998 summer session examinations, securing only 10 marks upon revaluation. To gain admission to the third-year course (BSW Part-III), she submitted her original mark-sheet and the revaluation notification to her college. The admission clerk and the principal verified the...

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Proprietor and His Business Are Not Separate Legal Entities

The Supreme Court held that a proprietorship concern is not a juristic person and a suit filed against the proprietor personally is maintainable. Order XXX Rule 10 of the CPC is merely enabling and does not bar a suit against the proprietor, who remains the real party in interest for all transactions conducted in the trade name. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, owners of a property, leased it to Aditya Motors, a sole proprietorship concern of respondent Pilla Durga Prasad, via a registered lease deed. After the lease expired, the lessee failed to vacate, prompting the appellants to file an eviction suit. The original suit named the lessee as defendant no.1 (Aditya Motors), along with the sub-lessee and its directors. During the proceedings, the appellants amended the plaint, substituti...