Judgment Intelligence
Petition Allowed
UP Co-operative Federation Limited v. Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi & Ors.
Civil Appeal Nos. 13239-13240 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 32582-32583 of 2026, against the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, orders of 05.08.2026 in Special Appeal Defective Nos. 426 and 427 of 2024)
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 29 September 2026
- Bench
- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5
Final Outcome
Appeals disposed of: the High Court's order refusing to condone the delay set aside on condition that the Federation pays ₹2,000 to each writ applicant within four weeks; on proof of payment, the intra-court appeals to be heard on merits, with the contempt proceedings stayed meanwhile (paras 10-11).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
The respondents' writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, challenging the Federation's office memorandum of 04.07.2018, were allowed on 29.02.2024, and contempt applications followed for non-compliance (para 3). The Federation filed intra-court appeals in 2024 with an application to condone a 130-day delay (paras 2, 4). After the Supreme Court stayed a contempt order and asked the Division Bench to decide the appeals, with the contempt proceedings stayed till then, the High Court dismissed both appeals because the cause for delay was not properly explained (paras 2, 5).
Court's Findings
The Court declined to examine the Federation's contention that the High Court was agitated by its approach to the Supreme Court (para 6). On condonation, it held that the cause, not the length, of the delay is paramount: however short the delay, a cause not in the proximity of truth cannot be accepted, while sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 justifies condonation irrespective of length, and some latitude is due where appeals by the State are delayed for genuine administrative reasons (para 6). Relying on Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji and State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO, it said every day's delay need not be explained pedantically (paras 7-8). The affidavit showed that the Managing Director, whose decision was needed to appeal, was an election observer in Gujarat from March to May 2024, the High Court then closed for summer vacation, and the appeal was filed after legal opinion (para 9). That cause was neither mala fide nor intentional and was sufficient cause; but the writ applicants, forced to oppose the delay in two courts, deserved compensation (para 9).
Legal Principle
In deciding whether to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the cause of the delay, not its length, is decisive; a bona fide administrative reason, such as the absence on election duty of the officer whose approval was needed to appeal, is sufficient cause, though the other side may be compensated with costs (paras 6, 9-10).
Precedents Relied Upon
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others AIR 1987 SC 1353: (1987) 2 SCC 107
Relied Upon · Discussed at ¶ 7
Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to be applied liberally to do substantial justice; every day's delay need not be explained pedantically, and the State is entitled to the same even-handed treatment as any other litigant.
State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and Others (2005) 3 SCC 752
Relied Upon · Discussed at ¶ 8
Delays caused by the slow movement of government files call for some latitude; sufficient cause is to be considered with pragmatism in a justice-oriented approach rather than by demanding an explanation for every day's delay.
