| COURT: | Bombay High Court |
| CORAM: | G. S. Patel J |
| SECTION(S): | 5 of Limitation Act |
| GENRE: | Other Laws |
| CATCH WORDS: | Condonation of delay |
| COUNSEL: | Gargi Bhagwat, KR Patel |
| DATE: | February 27, 2018 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | March 6, 2018 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | - |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| No more adjournments. No more ‘tareek pe tareek’. Enough is enough. That a Court will endlessly grant adjournments is not something that parties or advocates can take for granted. Nor should they assume that there will be no consequences to continued defaults and unexplained delay | |
The time has gone when a Court could, would or should pick up some utterly random figure like Rs.5,000 or Rs.25,000, a number wholly without tether to the actual days of delay. Fixing ad hoc figures like this is counter-productive. Parties believe that even if the delay is inordinate, the costs of that delay will be negligible; and hence they continue to extend the delay. The costs must be real. They must be sufficient to convey the message that non-compliance with our orders brings consequences; that these consequences are inevitable and unavoidable; and the consequences are not some piffling trifle
Recent Comments