#Limitation Act Section 5

NCLAT rules that the three-month timeline under Section 121(2) of the IBC for filing bankruptcy applications against personal guarantors is directory, not mandatory, allowing condonation of delay under the Limitation Act. This decision clarifies that financial creditors can proceed with insolvency applications even beyond the prescribed period, ensuring flexibility in personal guarantor insolvency proceedings.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a petitioner’s failure to receive a statutory order, despite due diligence, qualifies as sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone significant delay in filing an appeal. This sets a critical precedent for citizens challenging administrative decisions where official communication fails, reinforcing natural justice in licensing regimes.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that a party claiming condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must disclose knowledge of the impugned order; suppression of facts defeats equity and justifies dismissal of the petition. The ruling reinforces the clean hands doctrine in property disputes, impacting litigants seeking relief on grounds of delayed knowledge.

Jharkhand High Court rules that statutory authorities under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, lack inherent power to condone delays in mining lease renewal applications, even by a single day, unless expressly permitted by law. The judgment reinforces that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies only where statutory rules explicitly incorporate it, impacting mining leaseholders and administrative bodies.

Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirms that civil court decrees validating a Will override revenue authority mutation orders, even when revenue appellate orders ignore judicial findings. The ruling reinforces the supremacy of civil courts in inheritance disputes, impacting property mutation proceedings under disputed wills.