VIMAL CHAND GAUTAM CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) IN all these three matters having the identical facts and grievance the common order in passed.

(3.) IT may be true that sometimes even the Courts may be annoyed by the delay caused in the legal proceedings, but that itself cannot be a ground of annoyance resulting into passing orders only because of annoyance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balraj Taneja & Anr. vs. Sunil Madan & Anr. (1999) 8 SCC 396 held that in a case where defendant adopted dilatory tactic, and the Court passed the decree in favour of the petitioner observed that such annoyance should not disturb the judicial composure. The facts of the case, which were decreed., were recorded in the judgment of the Supreme Court and relevant portion is as under :