2012 (4) TMI 341 - SC - Companies Law

Condoning the delay of 427 days in filing SLPs before this Court - Held that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions - Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few - Appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petitions (SLPs).
2. Conformity of the impugned advertisement with the law.
3. Interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to reopen concurrent findings of fact rendered by the High Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing SLPs:
The primary issue was whether the Office of the Chief Post Master General had shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 427 days in filing the SLPs before the Supreme Court. The Court examined the reasons provided by the Postal Department for the delay, which included procedural red-tape and bureaucratic processes. The Department argued that the delay was not intentional but due to unavoidable circumstances and administrative procedures. They cited several precedents where the Supreme Court had adopted a liberal approach in condoning delays for government entities, emphasizing that public interest and substantial justice should prevail over technicalities.

However, the Court found that the explanations provided were inadequate and demonstrated a lack of diligence. The affidavit filed by the Department detailed the timeline of events but failed to justify the prolonged delays at each stage. The Court noted that the Department did not apply for the certified copy of the High Court judgment promptly and displayed a pattern of indifference and procedural delays. The Court emphasized that the law of limitation binds everyone, including government bodies, and that condonation of delay should not be granted mechanically.

The Court concluded that the Postal Department had not provided a plausible and acceptable explanation for the delay and had failed to demonstrate bonafide efforts. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the ground of delay.

2. Conformity of the Impugned Advertisement with the Law:
Since the Court dismissed the appeals on the ground of delay, it did not delve into the merits of whether the impugned advertisement in the Reader's Digest issue of December 2005 conformed to the legal requirements. The question of law regarding the advertisement's conformity was left open to be decided in an appropriate case.

3. Interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India:
Similarly, the Court did not address the issue of whether the Department had made out a case for interference under Article 136 to reopen the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the High Court. This issue was also left open for future consideration in an appropriate case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Postal Department due to the inordinate delay of 427 days in filing the SLPs, finding that the Department had not provided sufficient cause for the delay. The Court did not examine the merits of the other issues concerning the impugned advertisement and the interference under Article 136, leaving these questions open for future adjudication.

← Previous Next →