9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1420 - SC - Indian LawsCondonation of delay of 161 days in filing appeal - main ground in the application is that the delay occurred on account of the time taken by the Appellant in prosecuting a review petition before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity - Held that - this Court had condoned the delay without noticing the bar Under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for condoning delay beyond 60 days after expiry of the limitation period. Therefore, the order dated 03.08.2015 condoning the delay of 161 days in filing the appeal is recalled. In the facts of the present case, since the principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not attracted, Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2015 for condonation of delay is dismissed.
Issues:
Delay in filing appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003; Application for condonation of delay; Principles under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963; Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Delay in filing appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003: The appeal was filed after a delay of 161 days from the prescribed period under Section 125. The delay was attributed to the time taken in prosecuting a review petition before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. The review petition was dismissed, and the appeal was filed after the dismissal. The Supreme Court can allow an appeal to be filed within a further period not exceeding 60 days if the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing within the initial 60 days. However, the Court cannot condone the delay beyond 60 days by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as decided in Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission. Application for condonation of delay: The appellant sought condonation of the delay of 161 days, citing the withdrawal of the review petition as the reason for the delay. The Court noted that the appellant failed to establish due diligence and good faith required under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellant did not file the appeal promptly after the review petition was withdrawn, despite having time before the court's closure for summer vacations. The Court found that the appellant did not prosecute the case with due diligence and good faith, making them ineligible for the application of Section 14. Principles under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963: The Court emphasized that both due diligence and good faith must be established to apply Section 14. In this case, the appellant's actions did not meet the criteria for exclusion of time under Section 14. The Court highlighted that lack of due diligence and good faith in prosecuting the case prevented the application of Section 14 to condone the delay. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963: The Court clarified that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to entertain an appeal filed beyond the specified period under Section 125 of the Electricity Act. The special limitation prescribed under the Electricity Act, 2003 prevails, and the Court cannot extend the period beyond what is allowed under Section 125. The Court recalled the order condoning the delay of 161 days and dismissed the appeal due to the delay, as the principles under Section 14 were not applicable, and the delay could not be condoned beyond 60 days as per the Electricity Act. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal and the application for condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the specific limitation periods set out in the Electricity Act, 2003, and the requirements of due diligence and good faith in seeking condonation of delay under the Limitation Act, 1963.
|
