#discretionary relief

Karnataka High Court dismisses a writ petition challenging an interim arbitration order under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act after a decade-long delay, ruling that inaction and failure to prosecute the matter render the challenge infructuous. The judgment underscores the necessity of timely legal remedies in arbitration disputes to avoid procedural forfeiture.

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that undue delay in filing a writ petition bars claims for actual back wages due to lack of diligence, but does not extinguish the right to notional service benefits for pension calculation. This clarifies that equitable relief in service law separates monetary compensation from accrued service rights, protecting retirees even when procedural delays occur.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that courts may invoke inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to grant a final opportunity to a tenant to file a written statement in an eviction suit, provided a substantial cost is paid to the plaintiff. This reinforces equitable relief in possession disputes where procedural lapses do not override the right to be heard, especially when possession is at stake.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a delay in seeking an Advocate Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is not fatal if the necessity arises post-cross-examination, provided the purpose is localization rather than evidence gathering. This clarifies the scope of judicial discretion in procedural timelines for property disputes.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that procedural fairness demands granting a final opportunity to file a written statement when hardship is established, even after repeated delays.