Allowed

Amit Sharma v. Indian Bank and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Nov 2024CWP/1660/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order dismissing an appeal solely on delay grounds. It remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority to decide on merits, citing constitutional principles of natural justice and health over form.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 27.04.2023 is set aside and the matter remitted to the Appellate Authority to decide on merits within four months after hearing the parties.

Amit Sharma Vs Indian Bank and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP-1660-202 4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

115

¶5

C W P-1660-2024 Da t e of decision: 14.11.2024

Amit Sharma

....Petitioner

Versus

Indian Bank an d another

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

¶12

Present : M r . Gaurav Verma, Advocate, for t he petitioner. M r . Gaurav Goel, Advocate, for t h e respondents.

¶13

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Pr a yer made in the present petiti o n is for quashing the order da t ed 27.04.2023 (A n nexure P-1), vide which th e appeal filed by petitioner w as dismissed.

¶15

Le a rned counsel contends that t h e petitioner was removed fr o m service vide or d er dated 03.08.2022, appeal f iled against which was dismis s ed solely on the g round of delay. Despite he, h a ving acted with due diligence in prosecuting the appeal, the same cannot be att r ibuted to any wilful negligenc e or lack of bona f ides on his part. The Appellate Authority, while passing t he impugned orde r , failed to adhere to the principl e s of natural justice. 3. A worthwhile reference can be m ade to Postmaster General vs. Living Media India Ltd .¹ , wherein Hon’ble t he Supreme Court observed t h at, “Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of de l ay

¶16

� (2012) 3 SCC 563

¶17

PARVEEN KUMAR 2024.11.26 19:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶18

CWP-1660-202 4 -2-

¶19

when there was no gross negligence or deliber a te inaction or lack of bona fide s , a liberal concessi o n has to be adopted to advance substantial justice…”

¶20

In Mahadeo Vithoba Nikam vs. Gajanan Pandurang Kulkarni² , the appeal was a llowed, setting aside all the or d ers of the appellate and revisio n al authority as als o the High Court and the matter was remanded for fresh decis i on on merits after h earing the parties and observed that even though the appellant w as not present bef o re the Additional Tehsildar an d filed the appeal against the or d er after a signific a nt delay, the Appellate Autho r ity was to consider the same on merits but it ha d been dismissed solely on the b a sis of delay. 5. Th e Appellate Authority in the ca s e of Arvind Gupta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue State Taxes³ , had rejected the appeal on the gro u nd of there being n o provision under the GST A c t for condoning the delay bey o nd four months, w h ich was set aside by the High C ourt and it was directed to dec i de the same on me r its.

¶21

Th e right to appeal is a cornersto n e of substantive justice and m ust not be cast asid e lightly on the altar of procedu r al technicalities such as delay. I t is incumbent upo n the Appellate Authority to decide appeals on their merits, ensuring a fair a nd reasoned consideration. A j u dgment reflecting the deliberat i on of a higher aut h ority, rather than merely rub b er-stamping the original decisi o n, would illumina t e the path to justice.

¶22

Ju s tice demands that substance tri u mph over form, particularly w h en no tactical adv a ntage is gained from a dela y . Courts must adopt a pragm a tic approach, cutti n g through the red tape to add r ess the heart of the matter. W h en

¶23

� (1998) 9 SCC 716

¶24

� WPA-2904-202 3 , dated 04.01.2024

¶25

PARVEEN KUMAR 2024.11.26 19:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶26

CWP-1660-202 4 -3-

¶27

procedural hur d les threaten to derail justice, th e scales must tip in favor of equ i ty, upholding the p r inciple that justice delayed sho u ld not become justice denied.

¶28

Ke e ping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, t he impugned orde r dated 27.04.2023 is set asi d e. The matter is remitted to t he Appellate Auth o rity, for rendering a decision o n merits, in accordance with l a w, within a period o f four months, affording the pe t itioner an opportunity of hearin g . 9. Th e present petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶29

14.11.2024 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) parveen kumar JUDGE

¶30

Whether s peaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether r eportable : Yes / No

¶31

PARVEEN KUMAR 2024.11.26 19:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Amit Sharma v. Indian Bank and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Sharma v. Indian Bank and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajan Kathwas Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ashok Kumar Vs Union of India and Others

Liza Paul Vs National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.

Vikash Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Chiranji Laland Ors. Vs St of Hry and Ors.

Praveen Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others