Limitation Act: Sufficient Cause U/S 5 Of Must Be Liberally Constructed So As To Advance Substantive Justice

Case: Dr Lahoot Hassan & Ors Vs SHO Vigilance Organization Kashmir

Coram: Justice Sanjay Dhar

Case No.: CRMC No.84/2018

Court Observation: “This is so, because of the peculiar functioning of Government departments where files move from one table to another and the decision making by very nature of the functioning of the bureaucracy takes a long time”

“It is true that Section 5 of the Limitation Act envisages explanation of the delay to the satisfaction of the Court and in matters of Limitation Act made no distinction between the State and the citizen. Nonetheless adoption of strict standard of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public justice, it would result in public mischief by skillful management of delay in the process of filing the appeal. The approach of the Court would be pragmatic but not pedandic”

Previous Posts

Redness & Swelling In Vaginal Walls Sufficient To Show ‘Penetrative Sexual Assault’ Even Though Insertion Of Male Organ Not Alleged: Meghalaya HC

“Injustice To Divide A Well-Knitted Family”: Meghalaya HC Quashes POCSO Charges Against Man Accused Of Having ‘Consensual Sex’ With Minor Wife

In Absence Of Any Resistance Or Alarm It Cannot Be Said Victim Was Kidnapped: Calcutta High Court Acquits Two

Arbitrator Cannot Be Appointed Over A ‘Dead Cause Of Action’ Barred By Law Of Limitation: Gujarat High Court

‘Projects Of National Importance’: Delhi HC Upholds DRDO Decision To Bar Entities With Pending Criminal Cases From Defence Contracts

Limitation Act: Sufficient Cause U/S 5 Of Must Be Liberally Constructed So As To Advance Substantive Justice: J&K&L High Court

Judges Cannot Be Experts In All Fields, Experts’ Opinion Cannot Be Supplanted By A Court Overstepping Its Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Suspicion However Strong Cannot Be Ground For Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused

“Poor Illiterate Lady”, “Senior Citizen”,”Rural Background”: Supreme Court Reduces Sentence Awarded To An NDPS Convict

Rule Of Evidence To Prove Charges In A Criminal Trial Cannot Be Used While Deciding Motor Accident Compensation Claims: Supreme Court