Allowed¶30

M/S. Bscpl Infrastructure Ltd, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2025MCC/942/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court; MCC No. 942 of 2025; condonation of delay; 455 days; Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963; sufficient cause; restoration of Review Petition No. 35 of 2019; dismissed for want of prosecution; order dated 26.04.2024; SLP(C) No. 3529 of 2025; Supreme Court order dated 07.02.2025; M/s. Bscpl Infrastructure Ltd; State of Chhattisgarh, Department of Mineral Resources; Director Directorate of Geology and Mining; Collector Mahasamund; Arvind Kumar Verma, J.; delay condoned; review petition restored to original number.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 455 days and restoration of Review Petition No.35 of 2019 to its original number. ¶30

M/S. Bscpl Infrastructure Ltd, Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

2025:CGHC:47096

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

MCC No. 942 of 2025

¶6

M/s. Bscpl Infrastructure Ltd, Through Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Shaik Shamsalam Vali, Age About 40 Yeare, S/o Shri Shaik Babu, R/o 12-1-1-67/1, Shalem Nagar, Near Railway Station, Narasaraopet, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, Registered Office At M. No. 8-2-502/1/a, Jivi Towers, Road No. 7 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana, Present Corporate Office- Village- Ghodari, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Mineral Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Director Directorate Of Geology And Mining, Indrawati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Collector District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

Digitally signed VASANT by VASANTKUMARDate: KUMAR 2025.09.16 10:51:18 +0530

¶14

For Applicant : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

15/09/2025

¶18

Heard on I.A. No.01/2025, application for condonation of delay in

¶19

¶20

filing application for restoration of review petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that after passing of order dated 26.04.2024 (Annexure A/1), the applicant instead of preferring an application for restoration of review petition before this Court, had preferred a SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C ) No.3529 of 2025. On 07.02.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the order by observing that ‘the remedy of the petitioner is to apply for restoration of the Review Petition which was dismissed for want of prosecution.’

¶22

Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by counsel for the applicant and contended that there is delay of 455 days in filing the application for condonation of delay in filing application for restoration of review petition.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶24

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides as under :

¶25

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allows an appeal or application to be admitted after the prescribed period has expired, provided the appellant or applicant demonstrates a "sufficient cause" for the delay to the satisfaction of the court. The court has the discretion to condone the delay if the reason provided meets this standard of a sufficient cause, though the term isn't explicitly defined and is interpreted liberally to serve justice.”

¶26

¶27

On due consideration, for the reasons assigned in the application and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed. Delay of 455 days in filing the application for condonation of delay in filing application for restoration of review petition is hereby condoned.

¶28

Also heard on application for restoration of Review Petition No.35 of 2019, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2024 for want of prosecution.

¶29

On due consideration and for the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, I am satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for restoration of Review Petition No.35 of 2019.

¶30

Accordingly, MCC No.942 of 2025 is allowed. Registry is directed to restore Review Petition No.35 of 2019 to its original number.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

Judge

Vasant

M/S. Bscpl Infrastructure Ltd, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Bscpl Infrastructure Ltd, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Bera Vs Union of India

Roshan Chandrakar Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Radheshyam Sahu Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Chandan Enterprises Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dron Singh Vs State of C.G.

Jagdish Nagesiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh