Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
326 judgments · newest first · showing 1–200
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking relief against the respondents. During the hearing, the petitioners moved that the writ petition be withdrawn and that they be allowed to approach the District Court under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Court examined the maintainability of the …
Mr. Ramesh Tukaram Diwate, filing a criminal revision, appeared before the Bombay High Court seeking permission to withdraw the revision and to have the time spent on it condoned under the Limitation Act, as he intended to pursue an appeal before the Sessions Court. The Court considered whether a …
The applicants, Mohan Kisan Chavhan and others, challenged the Special Judge's order rejecting their application for discharge in a criminal case. They argued that the proper remedy was to file an appeal under Section 14(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code and sought permission to withdraw the …
The appellants filed multiple civil applications seeking condonation of delay, setting aside abatement, and permission to bring the legal representatives of deceased parties on record. The court examined whether the delays—ranging from 673 to 4,967 days—were deliberately caused, invoking Section 5 …
The appellants filed multiple civil applications seeking condonation of delay, setting aside abatement, and permission to bring the legal representatives of deceased parties on record. The court examined whether the delays—ranging from 673 to 4,967 days—were deliberately caused, invoking Section 5 …
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, considered two civil applications seeking condonation of delay—one for 5,737 days and another for 322 days—in filing petitions to set aside an abatement and to bring legal representatives of the appellant on record. The respondents opposed the condonation, …
The State of Maharashtra filed an application seeking condonation of a 1,167‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The applicant argued that the delay was due to the time required to obtain sanction from the Law and Judiciary Department and was not deliberate. The court observed that no documentary …
The applicant, Ganesh Apparau Chaudhari, mistakenly filed a criminal revision under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure instead of a criminal appeal. He sought the court's permission to withdraw the revision and be allowed to file the proper appeal. The bench examined whether such a …
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, considered two civil applications seeking condonation of delay—one for 5,737 days and another for 322 days—in filing petitions to set aside an abatement and to place the appellant's legal representatives on record. The respondents opposed the condonation, …
The petitioners filed an application seeking condonation of a 456‑day delay in filing a suit to set aside an abatement and to bring the legal representatives of appellant No.1 on record. The respondents opposed, arguing that the delay could not be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The …
The applicant, Mirabai, filed a criminal appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC against an order of a Judicial Magistrate. The appeal was later converted into a criminal revision application by this Court. The applicant sought to withdraw the revision and instead file a revision before the Sessions …
The petitioner, Siddheshwar alias Siddhu Murlidhar Kekan, sought the return of a revolver seized in connection with Crime No.25/2022, alleging that his firearms licence, though expired in 2021, was pending renewal before the Collector, Jalna. The trial court, exercising powers under Section 452 of …
The petitioner, a judgment debtor, sought to resist a second execution petition filed by the decree holder more than 13 years after a decree was passed on 06‑04‑2002. The petitioner argued that the 12‑year limitation period under Section 136 of the Limitation Act began on the decree date, rendering …
The applicant, Pramila Kisanrao Gajbhie, sought permission to file an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging an earlier order. The court considered the request and, instead of allowing the appeal, disposed of the criminal revision application as withdrawn, granting …
The applicant, Shaikh Mukthar Ahmed Noor Mohammad, filed an application seeking condonation of a 5,391‑day delay in filing an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation/Employee’s Compensation Act against a 2010 judgment and award. He argued that poverty, loss of his truck‑driving job and …
The petitioners, illiterate and poor agriculturists, filed an application seeking condonation of a 117‑day delay in filing their first appeal. They explained that their lack of awareness of procedural requirements and poor communication with their counsel caused the delay. The court examined the …
The applicant sought condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration Act against a district court judgment dismissing his Section 34 application. The judgment was delivered on 29‑08‑2022, making the 90‑day limitation under Article 116 of the Limitation Act expire on …
The applicant, Ravindra Muralidhar Potdar, filed an interim application seeking condonation of a delay of 10 years, 11 months and 24 days in preferring a first appeal against a judgment dated 30 April 2024. The Coordinate Bench had earlier quashed a district court order and granted the applicant …
The petitioner, Shankar Shamrao Mane, filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the order of the Extra Joint District Judge that rejected his application for condonation of a 2‑year‑1‑month‑4‑day delay in filing an appeal against an ex‑parte decree. The original suit, filed by the …
The petitioners sought leave to appeal in a criminal matter but, after deciding to file an appeal before the Sessions Court in accordance with the precedent set in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC Online SC 1320), they requested the withdrawal of the present petition. The learned …
The appellant, Mohanlal Kanwarlal Vaid, filed an application seeking leave to withdraw his criminal appeal after a judgment in Celestium Financial v. A. Ghanasekaran. He also requested permission to initiate appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Judge. The Court considered the time taken by …
The original complainant filed a criminal complaint against Shraddha Co‑operative Society Ltd. and others for offences under IPC §§425, 447 read with 149, but the trial magistrate acquitted the respondents on 12‑01‑2015. The complainant later filed a leave application to appeal the acquittal, which …
The petition challenges the revenue authority's order that set aside mutation entries dating back to 1989 after Saga Builders filed an appeal 22 years later without the court first deciding whether the delay should be condoned. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority lacked jurisdiction …
The State of U.P. filed an appeal against Vikram Singh and another, but the appeal was lodged 189 days after the decree, exceeding the prescribed period. The State sought condonation of the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, submitting an affidavit and arguing that there was no deliberate …
The Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation (the Applicant) sought condonation of a 2,958‑day delay in filing a First Appeal against an award dated 22 March 2017 in Land Reference No. 16 of 2002. The delay was attributed to administrative bottlenecks, the Covid‑19 pandemic, and the need …
The petitioners obtained a decree in their favour in Civil Suit No. 101 of 1984, which was upheld by the High Court in 2002. Subsequent applications under Sections 33/39 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, were allowed on 08.01.2024, but the Tehsildar later recalled this order on 30.03.2024, …
The petitioners sought a review of the High Court's order dismissing their writ petition concerning a title dispute over land claimed on the basis of a registered sale deed. They alleged that the consolidation officer and subsequent appellate authorities had acted arbitrarily, failed to give them a …
Petitioner Major Singh filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging an eviction order dated 8 May 2026 passed by the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar under Section 209(Ja) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, and seeking a mandamus directing the officer to accept his restoration …
The appellant Sanklecha Constructions Pvt. Ltd. filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 63‑day delay in filing a second appeal under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The court examined whether the period during which a review petition was pending (23 Nov 2023 to …
Sonia Gupta and Astha Gupta filed a criminal revision challenging the Family Court's order rejecting their applications for condonation of delay and recall of a maintenance order under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. They argued that the delay of about 15 years was caused by the death of their counsel …
The petitioners, Iqbal, filed a civil revision challenging the dismissal of their suit and a subsequent dismissal of their appeal with a Section 5 limitation condonation application. No counsel appeared for the petitioners at the hearing. The respondents argued that the revision was not maintainable …
The Executive Engineer appealed a Reference Award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but filed the appeal after a delay of nearly five years. The appellant sought condonation of this delay, citing lack of timely action and procedural hurdles, including the Covid‑19 pandemic. The …
The Executive Engineer appealed a Reference Award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but filed the appeal after a delay of nearly five years. The appellant sought condonation of this delay, citing lack of timely action and procedural hurdles, including the Covid‑19 pandemic. The …
The petitioners obtained a temporary injunction in a suit, which the State appealed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC. The State's appeal was delayed, and a condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was granted by the trial court. The petitioners filed a writ petition under …
The petitioner, Pravin Prabhakar Nage, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging actions of the Union of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proper forum for the grievance was the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Relying on the Supreme Court’s …
The petitioner, Pravin Prabhakar Nage, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging actions of the Union of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proper forum for the grievance was the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Relying on the Supreme Court’s …
The appellants, a partnership firm and its partners, sued the respondent for unpaid amounts for urea and DAP supplied between 1987 and 1991, seeking Rs.16,57,250.50 plus interest. The respondent filed a counter‑claim of Rs.40,19,854 alleging breach of contract for not supplying the fertilizers in …
The appellants, a partnership firm and its partners, sued the respondent for unpaid amounts for urea and DAP supplied between 1987 and 1991, seeking Rs.16,57,250.50 plus interest. The respondent filed a counter‑claim of Rs.40,19,854 alleging breach of contract for not supplying the fertilizers in …
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai filed several interim applications and income‑tax appeals against Vodafone Idea Ltd. The respondent objected, prompting the applicant’s counsel to state that the applications and appeals would be withdrawn and re‑filed before the Delhi High Court. The …
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai filed several interim applications and income‑tax appeals against Vodafone Idea Ltd. The respondent objected, prompting the applicant’s counsel to propose withdrawing the proceedings and refiling them before the Delhi High Court. The Bombay High Court …
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai filed several interim applications and income‑tax appeals against Vodafone Idea Ltd. The respondent objected, prompting the applicant’s counsel to agree to withdraw the applications and appeals and re‑file them before the Delhi High Court. The Bombay …
The applicants, who were acquitted in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed an application seeking leave to appeal the acquittal. Their counsel, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025), requested to withdraw the leave …
The applicant, Ganesh Krishna Madhavi, filed an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The applicant sought to invoke the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, relying on the Supreme Court’s …
The Gujarat Sheep and Wool Development Corporation filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 185‑day delay in filing a petition for restoration of a second appeal. The respondent opposed, arguing that the decree under appeal had already been executed, …
The Gujarat Sheep and Wool Development Corporation filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 185‑day delay in filing a petition for restoration of a second appeal. The respondent opposed, arguing that the decree under appeal had already been executed, …
The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 43‑day delay in filing a criminal appeal against an order of acquittal. The applicant also requested permission to convert an earlier criminal revision application into a criminal appeal, as the …
Champaben Somabhai Patel filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 36‑day delay in filing a criminal appeal. The delay arose because the original complainant had filed a criminal revision application, but the coordinate bench held that only an appeal was …
The applicant sought condonation of a 29‑day delay in filing a criminal appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court examined the circumstances, noting that the original complainant had filed a criminal revision which the coordinate bench held should have been an appeal against the …
The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a three‑day delay in filing the main criminal appeal. The respondents opposed, arguing that no satisfactory explanation was provided for the delay. The court examined the facts and the averments in the …
The State of Gujarat filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 529‑day delay in filing the main criminal appeal against Chaudhary Kantibhai Dahyabhai & Ors. The court examined the facts and the averments made in the application to determine whether the delay …
The State of Gujarat filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 225‑day delay in filing the main criminal appeal. Respondent No. 2 had died on 13‑01‑2026, and the court held the application as abated with respect to him. Respondent No. 1 …
The appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 58‑day delay in filing the main criminal appeal. The High Court considered the facts and circumstances presented in the application. After hearing counsel for both parties, the Court found the reasons …
The applicants filed Special Civil Suit No. 66 of 2010 which was dismissed by the Civil Court on merits without any evidence being taken, prompting a review petition that was also dismissed. They later filed a first appeal (F/FA/31316 of 2023) after a delay of 475‑484 days and sought condonation of …
The appellant, a construction firm, claimed to have purchased agricultural land in 1985 and 1990 through agreements and irrevocable powers of attorney, and sought specific performance, declaration of a 2018 sale deed as void, and injunctions. The trial court dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule …
The petitioner, Patel, filed an application seeking condonation of a 195‑day delay in filing an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The application was made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner argued that the delay was unavoidable and requested a liberal approach …
The petitioners, Nathabhai Bhimabhai Rathod and another, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 49‑day delay in filing their main criminal appeal. The respondents, the State of Gujarat, were represented by an Additional Public Prosecutor. The court …
The original suit (Civil Suit No. 55 of 1989) was dismissed by the trial court on 19 April 2012. The defendant appealed (Appeal No. 718 of 2012) which was dismissed on 30 November 2021. A review application (Civil Review Application No. 8 of 2022) was filed and the appellate court, on 4 October …
The petitioners, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking condonation of a 62‑day delay in preferring an appeal. The petition was filed by advocates Mr G.C. Mazmudar and Mr H.G. …
The petitioner, Sayra Ashrafkhan Pathan, filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 36‑day delay in filing a restoration application. The application alleged that the delay was sufficiently explained in the accompanying memorandum. The …
The case involved an ancestral joint family property where the plaintiff, a daughter of the deceased, claimed a one‑fourth share. The first appellate court granted her share, holding that no valid partition by metes and bounds had been effected and that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, did not …
The appellants filed a first appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenging a civil judgment, but the suit value was only Rs.1,310. The Court, relying on the precedent set in Maliben Kamabhal Harijan v. Jagjivan Nanji (2023 SCC Online Guj 171), held that appeals involving such low-valued suits are …
The applicant, Jasiben Ishwarbhai Thakarda, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 93‑day delay in filing a criminal appeal/leave to appeal against the State of Gujarat. The applicant’s counsel, Ms. Amrita Ajmera, appeared for the petitioner, while the …
The petitioner, Rajiv Kumar, sought a writ of certiorari to quash a selection order dated 10‑07‑2019 that placed his name under the E.B.C. (M) category for a fair‑price dealer under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, alleging discrimination despite his …
The petitioner sought condonation of a 27‑day delay in filing a Section 34 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an award dated 16 Nov 2024. The petition was due by 16 Feb 2025, but the petitioner fell seriously ill on 10 Feb 2025 and was unable to file until after …
Indu Devi, claiming to be the widow of a deceased PDS dealer, was initially selected on compassionate grounds for a PDS licence by the District Selection Committee (DSC) on 4‑December‑2014. The DSC later reviewed and rejected her selection, stating she was not the dealer's wife and that the dealer …
The petitioner, an EBC‑category resident, applied for a Public Distribution System (PDS) licence under the EBC category but the licensing authority issued the final merit list dated 28‑09‑2018 placing him in the unreserved category and allotted the licence to another EBC applicant under the …
Ramdeo Singh challenged the cancellation of his PDS licence (No. 01/1994) by the Sub‑Divisional Officer and the subsequent dismissal of his appeal by the Collector. He filed a writ petition seeking to set aside both the cancellation order and the appellate order and to restore his licence and …
Petitioner Chandan Kumar challenged the selection of two individuals as PDS dealers in Korai Panchayat, alleging violation of Order‑11 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2016, and sought certiorari and mandamus to quash the selection. The Court observed that the Order …
The petitioner, Md Akbar, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Bihar officials to award him a licence for a fair‑price (PDS) shop, alleging that he satisfied the criteria advertised and that the authorities had selected an inferior candidate. The respondents contended that …
The petitioner Arbind Kumar filed a writ petition seeking quash of a 26‑Nov‑2018 order of the District Magistrate in a supply appeal and the cancellation of his PDS licence. The petitioner argued that the limitation period for filing a revision under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System …
Vikash Kumar filed a writ petition challenging the selection of a private respondent over him for the position of PDS dealer in Gram Panchayat Raj Marar, alleging he was more qualified. The respondents relied on the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which provides a …
The applicants, heirs of Ashok Manubhai Patel, filed a civil suit in 2020 for declaration, injunction, cancellation of a sale deed and specific performance, but the suit was dismissed because the advocate handling the case failed to pay the required court fees despite receiving full payment, leading …
The petitioner, Jhingur Bhagat, challenged the cancellation of his Fair Price Shop licence by the Sub‑Divisional Officer and its affirmation by the District Magistrate, seeking a writ to quash the orders and restore the licence. The respondents argued that the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution …
Nitish Kumar challenged the cancellation of his Public Distribution System (PDS) licence by the Sub‑divisional Officer, Barh, through a writ petition seeking restoration of licence No. 64 of 2017. The respondents argued that the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 …
The petitioner, Rajnish Bharti, filed a writ petition seeking cancellation of the selection of respondent No.12 as a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer and to be appointed herself, alleging she is the most suitable candidate. The respondents, representing the State of Bihar and various …
The petitioner, Dhanlal Harijan, challenged the cancellation of his Fair Price Shop licence (No.27TR/2007) by the Sub‑Divisional Officer on 12‑Nov‑2016, seeking a writ to set aside the order. The respondents relied on Sections 32(iii), (v) and (vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System …
The petitioners, a group of individuals claiming ancestral ownership of land, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28‑03‑2026 issued by the Additional Collector, Saran, which cancelled their jamabandi. They sought quashing of the order and a direction to prevent interference with their …
Puja Kumari filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Bihar and related officials to set aside a selection letter dated 19‑May‑2018 and the PDS licence No. 36/18 issued to Farhana Khatoon. The respondents argued that the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) …
Anshu Priyadarshi filed a writ petition seeking a certiorari to quash a District Magistrate order granting a PDS shop licence to Aman Kumar, who allegedly failed to produce an unemployment certificate, and also sought mandamus directing issuance of a licence to himself. The respondents contended …
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to allot a PDS shop licence to him, alleging that the selection of two other applicants was illegal. The court observed that the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides a specific appeal and revision …
Petitioner Md. Aalam challenged the selection of a private respondent as a PDS dealer, alleging it violated the reservation policy and seeking a mandamus to cancel the selection and appoint an extreme backward category person. The respondents argued that Section 32(iii), (v) and (vi) of the Bihar …
Petitioner Vijay Pathak filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to set aside an order of the District Magistrate of Madhubani that rejected his grievance on alleged procedural grounds. The petition alleged that the order was based on incorrect findings and that the application was filed out of time …
The Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society (PACS) Parasmani challenged the cancellation of its Public Distribution System (PDS) license by a Sub‑Divisional Officer, seeking a writ to quash the order and restore the license. The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternative …
Santosh Kumar filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the authorities to allot a fair price shop to him and cancel the allotment made to Sanjay Kumar. The respondents argued that the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides a specific appeal and revision …
The appellant, Priyanka Yadav, appealed an ex‑parte divorce decree granted to her husband under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, alleging that the suit notice was sent to a wrong address and she was never served. The trial court had struck off the appellant’s defence for non‑compliance with …
The petitioner, Satyendra Kumar, challenged the final selection list for a PDS licence in Kachhiyana village, alleging that his candidature was ignored in favor of respondent No.5. The respondents argued that the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides specific …
Petitioner Priyanka Kumari filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Bihar and its officials to grant her a wholesale licence for a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealership. The respondents argued that the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 …
The petitioner, Barun Kumar, challenged the rejection of his application to become a PDS shop dealer in Saidpur Panchayat, alleging that the rejection was based on an incompletely filled affidavit and his status as a ward member, and that the subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Divisional …
Manju Devi filed a writ petition seeking to be appointed as a PDS dealer and to obtain a PDS licence for her ward, while also requesting cancellation of a licence granted to a family member, alleging that the issuance was illegal, arbitrary and violated her fundamental rights under Articles 16 and …
Rinku Kumari filed a writ petition seeking to quash Memo No. 719 dated 20‑08‑2019 which appointed Smt. Chandani Kumari as the P.D.S. dealer for Baghai village and to direct the authorities to consider her own candidature. The selection was made by a committee chaired by the District Magistrate, …
The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, sought a writ directing the State of Bihar and various officials to verify the licensing documents of another PDS dealer and to cancel that dealer's appointment, claiming the dealer had falsified his reservation category and missed the objection deadline. The …
Shyam Deo Sah, holder of a Public Distribution System (PDS) license No. 17/2016, challenged the cancellation of his license by a memo dated 18‑01‑2019 through a writ petition seeking certiorari and mandamus. The respondents argued that the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, …
The petitioner, Fair Price Dealers Association (Registration No.2525/81), filed a writ petition seeking an injunction restraining respondents 6 and 7 from using the association’s name and address and requesting the court to recognize the petitioner as the genuine association, relying on an earlier …
The petitioner, Nand Kumar, filed a writ petition seeking declaration that he was the selected candidate for a PDS dealership license, alleging that the selection list was improperly prepared. The respondents argued that the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides a …
The petitioner, Rama Shankar Tiwary, sought a writ directing the State of Bihar to grant him a licence for a fair‑price shop, claiming he was placed at the top of the merit list. The respondents contended that the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides a specific …
The petitioner, John Pascal, challenged the cancellation of his 1987 license under the Public District System by seeking a writ of certiorari to quash orders dated 30‑08‑2013 and 13‑07‑2018. The respondents argued that the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides a …
The applicant filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 76‑day delay in filing a criminal appeal. The respondent opposed the application, arguing it should not be granted. The court examined the facts and circumstances presented in the …
The appellant, Jayeshbhai Harishbhai Arya, filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking condonation of a six‑day delay in filing an application for restoration under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The delay was contested by the State of Gujarat and the Additional Public Prosecutor. The court …
Shiv Achal, claiming ownership of a 0.24‑hectare plot in Jokahi village, challenged a decree passed in 2013 that declared Hindalco Industries and others as owners. An appeal filed in 2014 was dismissed for non‑appearance on 20 September 2023, and his subsequent application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC …
Sunil Shukla and others filed a criminal revision challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting their application for discharge in a case under Sections 147, 323, 336, 427 and 307 IPC. They alleged that the FIR was false, motivated by an enmity over a shop, that the alleged theft …
The petitioners filed a criminal revision challenging the trial court’s order of formal framing of charge dated 16‑12‑2024. The revision was presented 401 days after the impugned order, and the petitioners sought condonation of the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court examined the …
The petitioner, Dhananjay Rai, challenged the consolidation officer’s orders dated 01.07.2025 and 09.10.2025 relating to a time‑barred title objection filed under Section 9‑A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The officer had earlier condoned the delay in filing the objection …
The Central Bureau of Investigation filed a criminal revision seeking to set aside a discharge order dated 02‑11‑2018 that had released Shilpaben Patel in two CBI cases. A separate misc. application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed for condonation of a 222‑day delay in filing the …
The appellants sought to amend and substitute the deceased defendant Arun Kumar Swaroop in a civil suit for permanent injunction, filing application 34‑Ka in a miscellaneous proceeding. The trial court found that the plaintiff had repeatedly delayed the case, filed the substitution application …
The petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 95‑day delay in filing a restoration application for Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1233 of 2025, which had been dismissed for default without a hearing. The court examined the petitioner's explanation for …
The appellant, Banarsi Lal Sharma, filed a first appeal seeking enhancement of a motor accident compensation award dated 18‑12‑2009. The appeal was filed after a delay of 7 years and 103 days, and the appellant sought condonation of the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent …
The petitioners sought condonation of a 132‑day delay in filing an application for restoration of Special Criminal Application No. 3443/2025, which had been dismissed for non‑prosecution. The delay was pleaded to be caused by sufficient cause and not by any malafide or dilatory intent. The Court …
The applicants sought condonation of a 322‑day delay in filing Miscellaneous Civil Application No.1 of 2026 for restoration of the main matter. They invoked Section 5 of the Limitation Act and submitted detailed explanations for the delay in paragraphs 2 to 5 of their petition. The respondents …
The petitioners filed applications to substitute the legal heirs of a deceased sole petitioner and several deceased respondents, also seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court examined the affidavit explaining the delay and found it satisfactory, thereby condoning …
Uttam Datta applied to the Special Court for certification and release of 100 shares of Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd that were attached by the Custodian under the Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities Act, 1992. The earlier application filed in 2009 had been dismissed for want of …
Sweety Kumari, a medical officer, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 145‑day delay in filing an appeal against a divorce decree. She claimed the delay was due to the COVID‑19 lockdown and her lack of legal knowledge. The court noted that the lockdown …
The petitioner Varshaben filed a criminal appeal and subsequently sought condonation of a 214‑day delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The High Court heard arguments from counsel for both the petitioner and the respondents. The court examined the reasons for the delay …
Manoj Pandhurang Waghavekar filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an unspecified order of the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner later moved the court seeking leave to withdraw the petition, requesting liberty to file an appropriate proceeding later. The Court, after …
The Committee of Management of Jai Prakash Degree College appealed a 06‑12‑2024 interim order that barred recognition of its elections without court leave. The appeal was filed 382 days after the order, exceeding the limitation period, and the appellant sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of …
The petitioner challenged a civil judge's order that allowed the defendant to amend his written statement six and a half years after filing it, adding a limitation defence and a claim of adverse possession. The petitioner argued that the delay should bar the amendment and that the amendment would …
The complainant filed a criminal complaint in 2011; the accused were acquitted by the trial court on 26‑06‑2023. The complainant erroneously appealed to the Session Court, which dismissed the appeal on 11‑07‑2024, directing that any appeal must be filed in the High Court under Section 378(4) of the …
The appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal challenging a 2016 order of the Single Judge that dismissed his writ petition, which itself had dismissed an earlier petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. The Court examined whether Clause 10 of the Letters Patent permits an intra‑court appeal against …
The applicant, Asalambhai Aamadbhai Gandhar, filed a criminal revision application concerning a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case but delayed filing by 35 days. He sought condonation of the delay, arguing that the cheque amount had been paid, the parties had settled, and an affidavit of …
The petitioners sought restoration of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6788 of 2017 and filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to set aside the bar of limitation. The court observed that the petitioners failed to specify the number of days by which the limitation period had expired and …
The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 98‑day delay in filing a First Appeal. The respondent No.2 did not appear, and the applicant’s counsel argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons without any mala fides. The court examined the …
The petitioners Vidhyaben Girishbhai Solanki and another filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 39‑day delay in filing a criminal revision application. The court noted that the respondent's counsel, Mr. Chirag Brahmbhatt, had indicated an intention to …
Ankit Kishorbhai Dave filed a criminal revision application (R/CR.MA/27728/2025) seeking condonation of an 80‑day delay in filing the revision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent State of Gujarat was served but did not appear, and the original complainant (respondent No.2) also …
The petitioners filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 223‑day delay in filing a cross‑objection in First Appeal No. 249/2025. The Court examined the submissions and found that the petitioners had shown sufficient cause for the delay, with no indication …
The petitioners sought condonation of a 96‑day delay in filing a first appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. They argued that the delay was caused by genuine reasons and not by any dilatory intent. The court examined the submissions, emphasizing that limitation rules should not defeat …
The petitioners, heirs of the deceased, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 153‑day delay in filing their first appeal. The respondents were represented by counsel, while one respondent did not appear. The court examined whether the delay was justified …
Jagdishbhai Devabhai Tadvi filed a first appeal against Sanjaybhai Ramanbhai Tadvi and another, but the appeal was lodged 171 days after the prescribed period. The applicant sought condonation of this delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, asserting sufficient cause and absence of any mala …
The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 168‑day delay in filing a First Appeal. Respondents No.1 and No.2 did not appear, while respondents No.3 and No.4 were represented. The court examined the applicant’s claim of sufficient cause and …
The petitioners filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 936‑day delay in filing their First Appeal. They claimed sufficient cause for the delay, while the respondents opposed the condonation. The Court emphasized that limitation rules should not defeat …
The applicant, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 179‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The respondent had been served but did not appear. The court examined whether the delay was justified and whether the …
The applicant, Liberty General Insurance Ltd., filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 188‑day delay in filing its first appeal. Respondents Mevabhai Sablbhai Gamar & Ors. were served but did not appear. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that …
The applicant, Shankarlal Mavji Parmar, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 227‑day delay in filing a first appeal. The respondent No. 3 did not appear, while the other respondents opposed the condonation. The court examined the applicant’s …
The insurer filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 97‑day delay in filing its First Appeal. The respondent did not appear, and the insurer’s counsel argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not deliberate. The respondents opposed the …
The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 147‑day delay in filing a First Appeal. Respondent No.1 did not appear, while counsel for both parties were heard. The applicant argued sufficient cause for the delay, and the court emphasized that …
The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 322‑day delay in filing a first appeal. The respondents did not appear. The applicant’s counsel argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not a dilatory tactic. The court emphasized that …
The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 216‑day delay in filing a First Appeal. The court examined the reasons provided, noting that the delay was not deliberate and that the applicant had a bona‑fide cause. Emphasising the principle of …
The applicants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 318‑day delay in filing their first appeal. Respondent No.1 did not appear, while counsel for both sides were heard. The court examined the applicants' explanation, finding it bona fide and not a …
The applicant, Jagdishbhai Muljibhai Koradiya, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 111 days' delay in filing a criminal revision application. Rule was issued returnable forthwith, and the learned advocates for the respondents waived service. The …
The applicant, Rajendrasinh Bhikhsinh Chauhan, filed a criminal revision application after a delay of 398 days, seeking condonation of the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Notice was served on the State of Gujarat, but the respondent did not appear, and the Additional Public Prosecutor …
The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 770‑day delay in filing a first appeal. Respondents No.1 and No.3 did not appear, while counsel for the other respondents were present. The court examined the applicant’s explanation, finding it bona …
Usha Kumari appealed the acquittal of three accused under the proviso to Section 413 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, alleging that they had assaulted her and her brother with a firearm on 20 June 2017. The trial court had acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed …
The petitioners Brij Behari Sah and Bindeshwar Sah filed an interlocutory application seeking restoration of First Appeal No. 232 of 2004, which had been dismissed for default on 24 August 2017. The court first examined whether notice to Opposite Party No. 1 had been validly served and, based on an …
The petitioners sought condonation of a 105‑day delay in filing a First Appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. They submitted a sick note and explained that the delay was not deliberate but due to genuine reasons. The respondents opposed the condonation. The Court examined the principle that …
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 58‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The applicant argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not a dilatory tactic. The respondent’s counsel, though on sick leave, …
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of an 18‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The applicant’s counsel, Ms. Dimple A. Thaker, argued that the delay was due to sufficient cause and not deliberate. Respondent No.2, …
The applicant, Pragneshbhai Girishbhai Brahmbhatt, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 359‑day delay in filing a first appeal. The applicant argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not a result of mala fide intent. The respondent (No.3) …
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 104‑day delay in filing its First Appeal. The applicant argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not a dilatory tactic. The respondent, represented by Mr. Dhairyawan D. …
The applicant, New India Assurance Company Ltd., filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 147‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The applicant argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and that the respondents had no objection to condonation. The …
The petitioners sought condonation of a 333‑day delay in filing a First Appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondents opposed the application, arguing the delay was unjustified. The Court examined the submissions, emphasizing that limitation rules should not defeat substantial …
The applicant, Liberty General Insurance Ltd, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 65‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The respondents did not appear before the Court. The applicant’s counsel submitted that the delay was due to genuine reasons and …
The insurer Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 30‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The respondents did not appear before the court. The applicant’s counsel argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and …
The case involves an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 65‑day delay in filing a first appeal by Liberty General Insurance Company Ltd. The respondents did not appear before the court. The applicant argued that the delay was caused by reasons set out in the …
The applicant, Takor Sonalben Bhikaji Vaghaniya, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 220‑day delay in filing a first appeal. The court heard arguments from both sides; the applicant’s counsel argued sufficient cause for the delay, while the respondents …
The applicants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 220‑day delay in filing their First Appeal. They argued that the delay was caused by genuine reasons and not by any dilatory intent. The respondents opposed the application, contending that the delay …
The New India Assurance Company Ltd filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 14‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The applicant argued that the delay was caused by reasons set out in the application and was not deliberate. The court examined the …
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 14‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The applicant argued that the delay was caused by genuine reasons and not by any dilatory intent. The court examined the submissions and …
The applicants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 166‑day delay in filing their first appeal. Although the application was served on the respondents, respondent No.3 did not appear before the court. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that …
The applicant, Laxmiben Jaydipsinh Zala, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 96‑day delay in filing a first appeal. No respondents appeared before the court, and the applicant’s counsel, Ms. Pooja H. Hotchandani, argued that the delay was due to …
The applicant, Chaudhary Rameshbhai Ambaramabhai, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 16‑day delay in filing a first appeal. The applicant argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not a dilatory tactic. The respondents opposed the …
The CBI filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 75‑day delay in filing a restoration application for a main criminal revision that had been dismissed for default. The applicant argued that sufficient cause for the delay was shown. The court examined the …
The Owner of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a three‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The respondents did not appear before the court. The applicant’s counsel argued that the delay was due to genuine …
Pankaj Kumar filed a civil writ petition seeking the quashing of a notice inviting tender, payment of Rs.10,69,016 and continuation of work under a contract with the Bihar State Milk Cooperative Federation Ltd. The respondents, including the State of Bihar and the cooperative society, contended that …
M/S Soft Age Information Technology Ltd filed special civil applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, invoking the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to challenge orders of the Ahmedabad Labour Court that rejected its applications for condonation of delay in restoring industrial …
M/S Soft Age Information Technology Ltd filed special civil applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, invoking the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to challenge orders of the Ahmedabad Labour Court that rejected its applications for condonation of delay in restoring industrial …
M/S Soft Age Information Technology Ltd filed special civil applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, invoking the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to challenge orders of the Ahmedabad Labour Court that rejected its applications for condonation of delay in restoring industrial …
M/S Soft Age Information Technology Ltd filed special civil applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, invoking the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to challenge orders of the Ahmedabad Labour Court that rejected its applications for condonation of delay in restoring industrial …
The East Central Railway filed an interlocutory application seeking condonation of an 85‑day delay in filing a commercial appeal under Section 13(1‑A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against a judgment dated 24‑06‑2025 in an arbitration matter. The railway argued that the delay was caused by …
The applicants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 227‑day delay in filing their First Appeal. They argued that the delay was caused by genuine reasons and not by any mala fide intent. The respondents opposed the application, contending that the delay …
The applicant filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a delay of 1987 days in filing a first appeal. The applicant argued that sufficient cause existed for the delay, and the court examined whether the delay was bona fide and not a result of mala‑fide or …
The applicants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 1,987‑day delay in filing their first appeal. Respondent No.3 was served but did not appear; the other respondents were not served. The applicants’ counsel argued that the delay was caused by genuine …
The petitioners sought condonation of an 824‑day delay in filing a first appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. They argued that the delay was not deliberate and cited sufficient cause, while the respondents opposed the application. The court examined the submissions, emphasizing that …
The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 596‑day delay in filing a First Appeal. The applicant argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not a dilatory tactic. The respondents opposed the application. The court examined the …
This application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 391 days' delay in filing the First Appeal. The applicants stated that they could not file the First Appeal in time for the reasons mentioned in the application. The respondents opposed the application. The Court …
The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking condonation of a 151‑day delay in filing a revision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner’s counsel argued that sufficient cause for the delay was shown, while the respondent’s counsel opposed, claiming no sufficient …
The New India Assurance Company appealed against a district court order that dismissed its application to set aside an arbitral award on the ground of limitation. The dispute centered on when the three‑month limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 began to …
The New India Assurance Company appealed against a district court order that dismissed its application to set aside an arbitral award on the ground of limitation. The award was signed on 25‑04‑2022 and a copy was sent by registered post, which the appellant received on 01‑06‑2022; copies were also …
The petitioner filed an application seeking restoration of an appeal that had been dismissed for default on 08-10-2025. The application was submitted on 15-10-2025, which is within the limitation period prescribed by law. The court examined whether the timely filing justified reinstating the appeal. …
The petitioners filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 183‑day delay in filing their appeal. The respondents were served but one did not appear. The court examined the reasons for delay set out in paragraphs 4‑9 of the petition and found them …
The petitioners filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 78‑day delay in filing their appeal. They pleaded sufficient cause for the delay, citing the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy (AIR 1998 3222). The Court examined the …
The petitioners, Manjulaben Narendrabhai Jadav and another, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of an 87‑day delay in filing their appeal. The respondents, Amitbhai Dineshbhai Jadav and others, were served but did not appear for respondents No. 1‑3. The …
The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 1,177‑day delay in filing an appeal. The court noted that the delay was explained in the application and that sufficient cause was shown. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. …
The petitioners filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 129‑day delay in filing their appeal. They pleaded specific grounds for the delay as set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application. The court heard counsel for both sides and examined whether …
The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 2601‑day delay in filing an appeal. The court examined the reasons for the delay as set out in paragraphs 9‑11 of the application. Relying on the precedent set in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy …
The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of an 85‑day delay in filing an appeal. The respondents did not appear despite being served. The court examined the reasons for delay as set out in paragraphs 9‑11 of the application and found them …
The applicant, Ramanbhai N. Vanzara, filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of an 85‑day delay in filing an appeal. The appeal was delayed due to reasons detailed in paragraphs 8‑10 of the application. No respondents appeared before the court despite notice being …
The plaintiff, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 42‑day delay in filing its appeal. The respondents were served but did not appear before the court. The court examined the explanations offered by the …
The petitioners Abdulsha Ramjusha Fakir & Ors. filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 17‑day delay in filing their appeal. The respondents Vinodbhai Rameshbhai Kuvariya & Ors. were served, but respondents No.1 and No.5 did not appear. The court examined …
Arjun Engicon Pvt. Ltd. filed a commercial appeal against East Central Railway but delayed filing the appeal by 6 months and 10 days beyond the deadline prescribed under Section 13(1‑A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The appellant sought condonation of this delay, citing confusion over the …
The applicants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 107‑day delay in filing their appeal. The court examined the reasons for the delay as set out in the application. Relying on the precedent set in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy (AIR 1998 3222), …
The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 156‑day delay in filing its appeal. The applicant explained the reasons for the delay in paragraph 3 of the application. The court heard arguments from the applicant’s counsel, Ms E. …
The petitioners, Vaishakhi Pareshbhai Shah and another, filed a revision application eight days after the prescribed period and sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The State of Gujarat and another respondent opposed the condonation. The court examined the memorandum of …
The petitioners filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 185‑day delay in filing their first appeal. The respondents did not appear before the court. The petitioners argued that the delay was caused by genuine reasons and not by any dilatory intent. The …
The petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking condonation of a 30‑day delay in filing a restoration application, invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent, the State, waived service of notice. The court examined the reasons for the delay and found them …
Shobha Shriprakash Kulkarni filed a writ petition challenging the District Judge's order dismissing her application to condone a delay of over five years in filing an appeal against a judgment of the Court of Small Causes, Pune. The petitioner sought relief to file the appeal despite the delay. The …
The applicant, Mohammed Samirbhai Hussainbhai Chudgar, filed a criminal revision application 145 days after the prescribed period, seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent State of Gujarat did not appear, though notice was served, and the Additional Public …
The applicant, Afzalbhai Aamadbhai Mahida, filed a criminal revision application but delayed filing it by two days. He sought condonation of this delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent State of Gujarat did not appear, and the Additional Public Prosecutor waived service. The …
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 72‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The respondents, Vajshibhai Aalabhai Godhaniya & Ors., did not appear. The applicant argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and …
The applicant, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 523‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The respondents did not appear. The court examined the applicant’s explanation, finding it bona fide and free of …
The applicant, Kalpeshbhai Nanabhai Baria, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 267‑day delay in filing a first appeal. No respondents appeared despite being served. The applicant argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not a dilatory …
The petitioners filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 195‑day delay in filing their First Appeal. The respondents did not appear. The court examined the petitioners' explanation, finding it bona fide and free of mala fide or dilatory intent. Emphasising …
This is a civil application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 298 days' delay in filing the accompanying First Appeal. The applicants are Deviben Vasanbhai Sonara & Ors., and the respondents are Mahdeva Hirabhai Sonara & Ors. Though respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were …
