sufficient cause under section 5 of limitation actdutton estate fume blanc

FURTHER DETAILS. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with the discretionary power of the Court to admit an appeal or an application, after the expiration of the limitation period with the restriction that it can be exercised by the court only if there exists a "sufficient cause" for the delay in filing such an appeal or application. Provisions of Section 5 and 14 of Limitation Act 1908, whether attracted. limitation may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section. Further, by applying section 5 of the Limitation Act, the court observed that delay in filing . No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause." 3 of 2020, an Applicant has to file an Application for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and satisfy the Court/ Tribunal that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay? The mandate of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 is that if a Court is satisfied about the applicant having sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or any other application, the delay may be condoned. Section 5 of the Limitation Act reads as hereunder:-. Connotation. Acknowledging that the expression 'sufficient cause' contained in Section 5 of the Limitation Act was elastic enough to yield different results depending upon the object and context of a statute, the Court held that given the object sought to be achieved under both the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, that is, the speedy . facts, not condoned as no sufficient cause was made out. But a cause to be sufficient within the meaning of the section must be a cause beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the section. Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 states "Extension of prescribed period in certain cases. 5. Contents of Article. 3 of 2020, an Applicant has to file an Application for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and satisfy the Court/ Tribunal that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay? C.R. The expression 'sufficient cause' is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. The court observed that by virtue of section 43 of the act, limitation prescribed under articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act - i.e., 90 days and 30 days, respectively - shall apply to appeals preferred under section 37 of the Arbitration Act. "Sufficient cause" under section 5 of Limitation Act Section 5 of the Limitation Act gives the Courts the discretion to entertain appeals filed after the prescribed period of limitation on case-by-case basis on the ground of sufficient cause. Section 5 of the limitations act says about the extension of the prescribed time period if sufficient cause is given by the aggrieved party. However, a cause in order to be sufficient cause must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking this section. In order to appreciate the aforesaid findings of the Supreme Court better, we will hereinbelow deal with the Sesh Nath judgment in detail. Section 14 of the NGT Act provides that the Tribunal will have jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment with respect to the above legislation and that the cause of action has first arisen within six months from the date of filing of such an application before the . The High Court's judgement refusing relief to the appellant was set aside. [S. Ramesh v. The Court thus observed that the meaning of "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 held that the Courts should adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach and condoned the delay of four days in filing appeal, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. According to the majority decision of the Calcutta High Court, in the circumstances just indicated there was sufficient cause to grant the appellant an extension of a day under Section 5 of the Limitation Act because it was held that it was enough if the appellant satisfied the court that for sufficient cause he was prevented from filing the . NCLAT holds that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted extension of period of limitation, it cannot be said that appeal, suit or application which is filed during the relevant period is barred by time so as requiring an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay. Section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with condonation of delay in case of appeal. is filed within period of limitation as . J&K Limitation Act, S. 3 - Condonation of delay - Sufficient cause - What amounts to - On the facts of the case, held that the cause shown was reasonable and satisfactory - Delay condoned. However, merely because it is held that Section 5 of the. Act. "..the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before limitation expired, it was not possible to file the appeal within time. Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 provides that any appeal or application for a revision or a review of judgment or for Leave to Appeal or any other application to which this section may be made applicable may be admitted after period of limitation prescribed therefore, when the appellant or applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making . The expression 'sufficient cause' had not been defined under the limitation Act, 1963. Limitation Act, 1963 - Jurisprudence, Interpretation & General Laws Important Questions. However, Section 5 makes it clear that there is no compulsion to file such an application. Section 5 provides that Reading Section 39 (1)(vi) and Section 17 together, it would therefore follow that an application to set aside an award which is rejected on the ground that it is delayed and that no sufficient cause has been made out under Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be an appealable order. While answering the above issue the court noted that under the Commercial Court Act section 13(1)A does not contain any provision similar to section 34(3) of the . Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 allows the extension of prescribed period in certain cases on sufficient cause being shown for the delay. However, Section 5 of Limitation Act, can be invoked for said purpose, if sufficient cause is shown in perusing wrong remedy. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay, the onus of proving which lies on the appellant/applicant. As stated in this case, Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for the discretion of the Court, which must be implemented in such a way that judicial power and discretion should be exercised on well-understood ideals. 572, the Supreme Court has held that even if the plea of limitation is […] LIMITATION ACT, 1963 [1] Section 5 of the act allows an appeal or application even after limitation period in cases where "sufficient cause" for such delay could be established. Limitation Act is not applicable to an application filed under Section. A mistaken advice given by a legal practitioner may, in the circumstances of a particular case, give rise to sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5, though there is certainly no general doctrine which saves from the result of wrong advice (Rajendra Bahadur vs. Rajeshwar Bali, A. I. R. 1937 P. C. 276). allowed." (Emphasis supplied) 6. Section 5 provides that any appeal or application (not plaint or suit) may be . It means that if the party doesn't show any reasonable ground for the delay then his appeal gets rejected by the court. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. was whether the High Court had power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay . Proceedings under that provision are not wrong proceedings and constitute sufficient cause permitting delay. Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 provides that on sufficient cause being shown an application can be admitted by the court even after the period of limitation has expired. Bar of Limitation - Doctrine of Sufficient Cause for Condonation of Delay. 11. provisions of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act. Legal disability. By applying the well laid down ratio in various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be given liberal consideration so as to advance substantial justice. Introduction To Condonation of Delay The term 'condonation of delay' is characterized under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the event of offers. Hence, in applying section 4, it would be . 1. consequence of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Section 5 of Limitation Act "Extension of prescribed period in certain cases" Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient . However, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be relied upon to condone delays in filing of appeals under Section 61 of the Code, as a specific period of . However, let us now assume that this was an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. "5 Extension of prescribed period in certain cases-Any appeal or any . appeal is to be condoned and the application is required to be. This period of limitation can be further extended by 30 days in cases where the applicant is able to show sufficient cause for delay in filing petition under Section 34. This is known as doctrine of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay which is embodied in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. : Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 allows the extension of prescribed period in certain cases on sufficient cause being shown for the delay. Section 5 of the Limitation Act reads as hereunder:-. "5 Extension of prescribed period in certain cases-Any appeal or any . The Court is reminded of the provisions under section 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act [Cap 89 R.E. . exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, we are of the view that sufficient cause has been stated for not. BK Education, recognized the discretion of adjudicating authority with regards to applicability of the aforesaid section on proceedings of the code. This is known as doctrine of "sufficient cause".
Texas Pasture Grasses, Sola Name Pronunciation, Phd In Behavioral Neuroscience, Lodash Filter Example, Regal Gift Card Walmart,