1990 (9) TMI 280 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Public interest and bad faith allegations.
3. Interpretation of "sufficient cause" under section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
4. Procedural aspects and Government functioning.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. The court noted that the appeals were filed beyond the stipulated period of 60 days as provided under section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The appellant argued that the delay was due to a reconsideration of the decision not to appeal, influenced by parliamentary discussions and the advice of the Law Ministry. The court emphasized that the law of limitation applies equally to the Government and private citizens but recognized that Government decisions are collective and often slow due to procedural red tape. The court concluded that the appellant had made out sufficient cause for the delay, considering the public interest involved and the substantial questions of law.

2. Public Interest and Bad Faith Allegations:
The appellant contended that the earlier decision not to file an appeal was tainted with bad faith and contrary to public interest. This claim was supported by parliamentary debates suggesting that the previous Government showed undue favor to the respondents. The respondents argued that a change of opinion by the new Government does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay and alleged political vendetta. The court found that the plea of bad faith was not an afterthought and was supported by the parliamentary debates. The court held that the refusal of the previous Government to file an appeal in a case involving substantial foreign exchange was unconvincing and suggested bad faith.

3. Interpretation of "Sufficient Cause" Under Section 54:
The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments to interpret "sufficient cause." It noted that the expression is elastic and should be applied to advance substantial justice. The court emphasized a liberal approach in considering applications for condonation of delay, especially when public interest is at stake. It held that the totality of circumstances, including the procedural delays inherent in Government functioning and the substantial foreign exchange involved, constituted sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

4. Procedural Aspects and Government Functioning:
The court recognized that Government decisions are often slow due to bureaucratic procedures. It noted that the decision-making process in the Government involves consultations and approvals at various levels, which can cause delays. The court held that these procedural delays should be considered while assessing sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It also noted that the appellant moved with considerable speed after the matter was reconsidered in December 1989.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the application for condonation of delay, emphasizing the need to examine the merits of the case in public interest. It clarified that the observations made in the order should not prejudice the contentions of the parties on the merits of the appeal. The delay of 120 days in filing the appeal was condoned, and the case was allowed to proceed for a detailed examination on the merits.