• Delay can’t be sole ground for quashing earlier verdict: HC
    Times of India | 30 January 2026
  • Kolkata: A judgment cannot be set aside solely on the ground of 18 months' delay in its delivery after the conclusion of arguments, Calcutta High Court ruled on Thursday. The court, however, expressed disappointment at the long delay.

    The division bench of justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya held that although "delay defeats the rights of parties to a litigation to have expedition justice" which is part of Article 21, the same cannot be set aside solely on the ground of delay "at the drop of a hat, without anything more." "Although we are somewhat disappointed at the long delay of over 18 months from the conclusion of the arguments to the delivery of the impugned judgment, we are unable to set aside the same solely on the ground of such delay," the bench stated.

    New Parijat Co-operative Housing Society Limited had approached the bench seeking for the single judge order to be set aside considering the verdict was delivered after 18 months of conclusion of final hearing. The bench noted that the housing society only approached the court after the single judge ruled in favour of KMDA.

    It was observed that as per guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, the parties could have approached the Chief Justice of the high court after six months of verdict being reserved seeking an early judgment or re-assignment of the matter to some other bench, but they instead chose to sit tight.

    "The appellants waited for a prolonged period of more than eighteen months and suddenly woke up from slumber only after the judgment went against them," the bench observed.

    The writ petition was filed in 2016. The arguments of both sides were concluded on Dec 8, 2023, and judgment was reserved. However, the judgment was delivered only on June 13, 2025, that is, after 18 months from conclusion of the arguments. It was the housing society's contention that at that point of time the Single Judge no longer had the subject-matter determination to hear the writ petition as per the then roster.
  • Link to this news (Times of India)