The Supreme Court has set aside the Delhi High Court\u2019s order that had refused to condone a 425-day delay in filing an application. The case, Mool Chandra vs. Union of India & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 8435-8436 of 2024, involved the appellant challenging the rejection of his condonation of delay application by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and subsequently by the High Court.<\/p>\n
The Bench, comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta, observed that a delay should be condoned if there is a sufficient explanation, irrespective of its length. The delay in this case was attributed to the appellant\u2019s advocate withdrawing the application before the CAT without informing the appellant. The appellant only learned of this withdrawal after a year, prompting him to seek to file a new application along with a delay condonation plea, which was rejected by both the CAT and the Delhi High Court.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court found the High Court\u2019s decision to be erroneous, emphasizing that if the delay is adequately explained and not attributable to the appellant, a liberal and justice-oriented approach should be adopted. The Court noted that the appellant had sufficiently explained that the delay was due to the advocate\u2019s actions and not his own.<\/p>\n
In its judgment, the Supreme Court held that the delay of 425 days in filing the fresh original application before the CAT was justified, setting aside the previous orders and allowing the appellant\u2019s plea. This decision underscores the Court\u2019s commitment to ensuring justice by considering the merits of the delay explanation rather than strictly adhering to procedural timelines.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Supreme Court has set aside the Delhi High Court\u2019s refusal to condone a 425-day delay in filing an application due to the withdrawal of the application by the appellant\u2019s advocate without notifying the appellant.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":409,"featured_media":28887,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[16422,16419,10590,16423,16424,14442,16420,3339,16421],"class_list":["post-28882","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-india","tag-central-administrative-tribunal","tag-delay-condonation","tag-delhi-high-court","tag-justice-aravind-kumar","tag-justice-sandeep-mehta","tag-legal-ruling","tag-mool-chandra","tag-supreme-court","tag-union-of-india"],"reading_time":"2 min read","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.businessupturn.com\/asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28882","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.businessupturn.com\/asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.businessupturn.com\/asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.businessupturn.com\/asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/409"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.businessupturn.com\/asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28882"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.businessupturn.com\/asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28882\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.businessupturn.com\/asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/28887"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.businessupturn.com\/asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28882"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.businessupturn.com\/asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28882"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.businessupturn.com\/asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28882"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}