9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Condoning delay in filing an appeal beyond the permissible period. 2. Application of limitation prescribed in the statute to the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Exercise of discretion under Article 226 in cases challenging the limitation period without examining merits. 4. Justification for non-filing of appeal within the statutory limitation period. 5. Preferential treatment of substantial justice over technicalities. 6. Exclusion of provisions of the Limitation Act by special laws. 7. Comparison between delay condonation in different legal contexts. Analysis: 1. The petitioner contended that the delay in filing an appeal beyond the permissible period should be condoned despite specific statutory provisions limiting the appeal timeline. The Tribunal was criticized for not condoning the delay, leading to the challenge before the High Court. 2. Reference was made to a previous decision where it was observed that the limitation prescribed in the statute should not be applicable to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the High Court emphasized that the law of limitation should be uniformly applied to all and not circumvented by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226. 3. The Court highlighted that the discretion under Article 226 should be cautiously exercised, especially when seeking to override statutory limitations without examining the case's merits. The Court emphasized that mere illness of a company's personnel cannot justify non-compliance with the statutory limitation period. 4. The Court rejected the argument that a short delay should warrant condonation, emphasizing that once the statutory limitation period lapses, the authority cannot entertain the appeal. All dealers must adhere to statutory requirements, and allowing exceptions would effectively rewrite the law. 5. The principle of substantial justice over technicalities was discussed, emphasizing that while justice is paramount, statutory limitations must be respected. The Court disagreed with the notion that condoning delays legalizes injustice. 6. The judgment referred to the Supreme Court's decision regarding the exclusion of Limitation Act provisions by special laws. The Court highlighted that specific laws can imply exclusion of general limitation provisions, emphasizing the need to adhere to statutory limitations. 7. The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no error of law or jurisdiction in the Tribunal's order. The judgment reiterated that Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be used to bypass statutory limitations, emphasizing the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines in legal proceedings.
|
