Gauhati High Court holds that limitation goes to the root of jurisdiction; failure to frame issue despite specific plea renders award void. Key precedent from *Noharlal Verma* applied.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that appellate authorities must consider condonation of delay applications before rejecting appeals, reinforcing procedural fairness under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
Chhattisgarh High Court rejects condonation of 73-day delay in appealing acquittal, holding bureaucratic delays insufficient under Limitation Act. Key precedent on state accountability.
Chhattisgarh High Court holds that delay in filing criminal revision must be explained by events occurring within the limitation period; mere financial hardship or counsel's advice is insufficient.
Madras High Court condones 231-day delay in filing Section 34 petition under Arbitration Act, emphasizing commercial litigation standards and conditional relief.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that delay in filing an appeal may be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if the same decree is already subjudice in another appeal, even without sufficient cause.
Bombay High Court holds that limitation for specific performance begins only upon breach of agreement, not the stipulated execution date, clarifying Article 54 of Limitation Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that limitation under Article 59 of Limitation Act starts when fraud is discovered, not when deed is executed. Plaint dismissed for failure to plead knowledge date.
Chhattisgarh High Court holds that ignorance of limitation periods or legal procedures cannot justify inordinate delay in filing criminal revisions, reinforcing strict application of limitation laws.
Bombay High Court grants liberty to file suit for specific performance after dismissing writ petition, holding that time spent in litigation may be considered for limitation waiver.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that a delay of 11 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not inordinate if reasonably explained; authorities must reconsider on merits.
Madhya Pradesh High Court condones seven-year delay in filing criminal appeal, emphasizing no prejudice to state and remanding for merits-based hearing under Section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court restores appeal dismissed due to counsel's inadvertent default, mandating community service and social audit to promote institutional accountability.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that courts must issue notice to all respondents before rejecting condonation of delay applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Madras High Court refuses to condone 301-day delay in filing writ appeal, holding that bureaucratic inertia is not sufficient cause under Limitation Act.