Need supremo court judgment copy on condone delay
Vinod Shah
(Querist) 23 August 2012
This query is : Resolved
My one friend needs following. He mailed me his requirement as under:
"I need help from you. I need to find a Supreme Court judgment
Issue : I need to transfer my father's membership in the co-operative housing society in Delhi from his name to my name. Due to my being busy, over 365 days have elapsed after his death and so permission of Registrar of Co-operative society is needed.
What I need : I have applied for delay condone. And there is a Supreme Court judgment which says that delay condone for upto 7 years must be allowed.
Can you search that judgment for me?
And if there is any charge, I would be more than happy to pay."
Kindly help him.
Regards,
Vinod Shah
ajay sethi
(Expert) 23 August 2012
Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana v. Chander Mani AIR 1996 SC 1622 has condoned the delay of more than 20 years, observing that the procedural law should not come in the way of substantive justice. This Court has also condoned the delay in filing of appeal for a period of 17 years in RFA No.154/2001, Kanwal Singh v. Union of India and also in the case of Standard Pharma Ceutical Ltd. v. G.C.Jain 97 (2002) DLT 290 in which delay of 18 years was condoned.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 23 August 2012
It is well settled that whether delay is to be condoned or not, is the discretion of the Court but the same has to be exercised judicially. The Supreme Court in Ram Lal and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361 held that;
"It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the
condonation of delay in question as a
matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S. 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condoning delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally
introduces the consideration of all
relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the
discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant. It cannot justify an enquiry as to why the party was sitting idle during all the time available to it
