Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 29 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – UP CO OPERATIVE FEDARATION LIMITED; Respondents – RAKESH KUMAR DWIVEDI & ORS.
  • Origin: Civil Appeal Nos. 13239‑13240 of 2026 arising out of Special Leave Petitions (SLP) (C) Nos. 32582‑32583 of 2026.
  • Background: Two writ petitions (Writ A No. 12482 of 2019 and Writ A No. 518 of 2024) were filed before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) challenging an office memorandum dated 04‑07‑2018 issued by the appellant. Both writ petitions were allowed by the High Court on 29‑02‑2024.
  • Contempt Proceedings: For non‑compliance of the judgment in Writ A No. 518 of 2024, Contempt Application (C) No. 2841 of 2024 was filed (order dated 25‑07‑2024) and again Contempt Application (C) No. 3050 of 2024 (notice on 05‑08‑2024). Multiple adjournments occurred, with the contempt court granting time for filing compliance affidavits and noting the pending special appeals.
  • Intra‑court Appeals: Special Appeal Defective (S.A.D.) No. 426 of 2024 and S.A.D. No. 427 of 2024 were filed on 07‑08‑2024, seeking stay of the High Court judgment and condonation of a 130‑day filing delay. The High Court granted 10 days to file objections (order dated 14‑08‑2024) and later adjourned the matters multiple times, eventually dismissing the appeals on the ground of delay.
  • Supreme Court Intervention: Aggrieved, the appellant filed SLP (C) No. 5406 of 2025, which was stayed by the Supreme Court on 17‑03‑2025. On 25‑05‑2026, the Supreme Court directed the High Court to dispose of the special appeals and stay contempt proceedings until disposal.
  • Legal Reasoning: The Court examined whether the 130‑day delay should be condoned. It emphasized that the cause of delay, not its length, is paramount. Citing Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and precedents (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO, (2005) 3 SCC 752), the Court held that administrative constraints—specifically the appellant’s Managing Director serving as an election observer in Gujarat (Mar‑May 2024) and the High Court’s summer vacation (June 2024)—constituted sufficient cause.
  • Affidavit Details: The supplementary affidavit dated 05‑12‑2024 explained the timeline from receipt of certified copies of the judgment to filing of the appeal on 26‑07‑2024, highlighting the Managing Director’s deputation and the need for administrative approval.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dismissing the condonation application.
  • It directed the appellant to pay costs of Rs 2,000 to each writ applicant (total unspecified) within four weeks, on production of proof of payment.
  • The appeals are to be taken up by the High Court on merits, subject to cooperation of counsel.
  • Contempt proceedings against the appellant are stayed pending disposal of the appeals.
  • The appeals are deemed disposed of, and any pending applications are consigned to the records.

Topics: Legal Delay Condonation, Supreme Court Order, Contempt Proceedings