CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2004) 04 DEL CK 0026

Shubhra Chit Fund (P) Ltd. vs Sudhir Kumar and Others

Delhi High Court · Decided on 15 April 2004 · Citation: (2004) 111 DLT 110 : (2004) 74 DRJ 383

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vikramajit Sen, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 1189 of 1999

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 375 words

Vikramajit Sen, J.—This Revision is filed against the dismissal of the Appeals by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, in the context of Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. Against this Order dated 1.3.1999, a SLP was filed in the Hon''ble Supreme Court which came to be dismissed on 13.8.1999. The present Revision was filed on 13.9.1999 that is after one month of the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. Unfortunately, no application seeking condensation of delay/enlargement of time accompanied the Revision Petition. On the objection of the Registry, an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act dated 12.11.1999 was filed on that very day.

2.

It is trite to state that the application for condensation of delay must accompany the Revision itself. I must, Therefore, assume that the Revision was filed not on 13.9.1999 but on 12th November, 1999. The Revisionist has invoked Section 5 of the Limitation Act but I shall read into the application the invocation of Section 14 of that Act. I shall also give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner that the filing of the SLP was occasioned by a bona fide error because of the incorrect advice of Counsel. However, atleast on 13.8.1999, the Petitioner was fully aware that the remedy of the filing of a Revision already stood foreclosed by the laws of limitation. The Revision ought to have been filed immediately. Instead it has been effectively filed after three months of the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Revisionist has relied on the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mata Din Vs. A. Narayanan, . Unlike in that case the Revisionist is a commercial entity which cannot be extended the laxity that may be warranted where the litigant is an uneducated individual. It was only to be expected that a proper Revision should have been filed immediately upon the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. The incorrect advice vitiates not only the filing of the Special Leave Petition, but even thereafter, it vitiates the present Revision. Too much latitude and leniency will make the provisions of the Limitation Act otiose, which approach must be eschewed by the Courts.

4.

No grounds to condone the delay have been shown. Dismissed.