AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 1506 ::2012 AIR SCW 1812 ::(2012) 1 WLC(SC)CVL 547 ::(2012) 1 CLR 559 (SC) ::(2012) 116 RevDec 167 ::(2011) 4 CivilCourtC 202 ::(2012) 2 CivilCourtC 1 ::2012 (2) SCC (Cri) 580 ::(2012) 2 Scale 782 ::(2012) 1 CurCC 173 ::AIR 2012 SC (Civil) 1109 ::(2013) 1 ServLJ 320 ::(2011) 5 AllMR 598 (BOM) ::(2012) 2 Cal LJ 93 ::(2012) 3 CalLT 65 ::(2012) 91 All LR 879 ::(2011) 4 BankCas 519 ::(2012) 4 Bom CR 831 ::(2012) 3 All WC 2651 ::(2013) 3 CPR 622 ::(2013) 2 CPR 306 ::(2013) 2 CurCC 20 ::(2012) 1 Guj LH 670 ::(2012) 113 Cut LT 1066 ::(2012) 348 ITR 7 ::(2011) 5 Mah LJ 241 ::(2012) 4 Mad LW 100 ::(2012) 3 JCR 59 (SC) ::(2012) 3 Raj LW 2142 ::(2012) 2 SCT 269 ::(2012) 112 AllIndCas 69 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Delhi)

Hon'ble Judge(s): P. Sathasivam, J. Chelameshwar , JJ

(A) Constitution of India , Art.136— Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , S.5— SLP filed by Postal Department - Delay of 427 days in filing - Condonation - Certified copy of High Court judgment applied for only after 4 months - No explanation afforded for delay - Delay at every stage of official procedure already showing that persons concerned have not evinced diligence in matter though they had knowledge of limitation for filing appeal - No cogent and acceptable explanation given by Dept. - @page-SC1507Appeal liable to be dismissed on ground of delay. (Para 12 13) (B) Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , S.5— Condonation of delay - Is an exception - Govt. Depts. should not use it as anticipated benefit - Usual Govt. claim of impersonal machinery and bureaucratic methodology - Not to be accepted unless there is reasonable explanation and bona fide effort. Unless the Govt. Depts. or instrumentalities have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that t....