SUKHLAL ANANT vs SMT. SHAKUNTALA ANANT, — CRR/690/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 16th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010144322026

Filing Number

CRR/6099/2026

Filing Date

08-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRR/690/2026

Registration Date

15-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble The Chief Justice

Coram

Hon'ble The Chief Justice

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 14 )

Sub-Category

MATTERS RELATING TO MAINTENANCE U/S 144 & 146 OF B.N.S.S. 2023 ( 1402 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

16-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUKHLAL ANANT

    Adv. ANANT BAJPAI,Vivek k. Shrivastava,Vivek k. Shrivastava, ,Vivek k. Shrivastava

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SMT. SHAKUNTALA ANANT,

  2. 2.Adarsh Anant

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    Case Summary: CRR/690/2026 Decision: The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed Sukhlal Anant's criminal revision petition and rejected his application for condonation of 122 days delay. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate "sufficient cause" for the delay, as ignorance of law and bona fide confusion do not constitute adequate justification under established precedent. Key Reasoning: Applying Supreme Court principles, the court found the applicant remained inactive for an extended period without explaining any circumstance arising within the limitation period that prevented timely filing. The doctrine of limitation serves public policy requiring certainty and finality; generosity toward delayed filings cannot prejudice the opposite party's statutory rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Jun-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  4. 08-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRR/690/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRR/690/2026 Decision: The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed Sukhlal Anant's criminal revision petition and rejected his application for condonation of 122 days delay. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate "sufficient cause" for the delay, as ignorance of law and bona fide confusion do not constitute adequate justification under established precedent. Key Reasoning: Applying Supreme Court principles, the court found the applicant remained inactive for an extended period without explaining any circumstance arising within the limitation period that prevented timely filing. The doctrine of limitation serves public policy requiring certainty and finality; generosity toward delayed filings cannot prejudice the opposite party's statutory rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case