Sufficient cause whether necessary for condonation of delay?

Limitation Act, 1963
S. 5 - Condonation of delay - Sufficient cause - Bald statement with no reasons as to non-intimation of impugned order -
Reiterated, no doubt mere technicalities should not come in way of rendering justice, but it is the duty of the court to
consider whether reasons assigned for the delay are sufficient cause within the meaning of S. 5 of Limitation Act - On
facts held, no satisfaction could have been reasonably reached that respondent complainant was prevented by sufficient
cause from filing revision the applications in time,

Kumar v. Karnataka Industrial Coop. Bank Ltd., (2013) 11 SCC 668


Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ss. 397 and 401 - Powers of High Court - Conversion of acquittal into conviction - Impermissibility - Held, under
revisional jurisdiction, High Court can call for the record to satisfy itself as to correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding, sentence or order but cannot convert a finding of acquittal into conviction - High Court, therefore, is empowered
to set aside a finding of acquittal but expressly barred to convert a finding of acquittal into that of conviction - Held, High
Court should have directed retrial or rehearing of case before lower court if justified - On facts held, reasoning and
findings of acquittal reached by trial court were correct - Impugned orders of High Court set aside, (2013) 11 SCC 668-A

Limitation Act, 1963
S. 5 - Condonation of delay - Sufficient cause - Bald statement with no reasons as to non-intimation of impugned order -
Reiterated, no doubt mere technicalities should not come in way of rendering justice, but it is the duty of the court to
consider whether reasons assigned for the delay are sufficient cause within the meaning of S. 5 of Limitation Act - On
facts held, no satisfaction could have been reasonably reached that respondent complainant was prevented by sufficient
cause from filing revision the applications in time,

Print Page