9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 65 - HC - CustomsCondonation of delay - delay of 697 days - benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. - Held that - the appellant was assisted and had the services of the counsel s, who are expert in the central excise and customs cases. They first filed a writ petition, and then without converting it into appeal obtained an interim order. They kept on getting the matter adjourned and thereafter inspite of specific objection taken, citing the relevant case law, which is well known, took time to study the matter. Thereafter, they took more than one year and three months, to study the matter to withdraw the appeal. They took a chance, which apparently looking to the facts in Ketan V. Parekh s case 2011 (11) TMI 62 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and this case appear to be the practice of the counsels appearing in such matters at Delhi High Court and succeeded in getting interim orders. The Supreme Court 2011 (11) TMI 62 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA has strongly deprecated such practice of forum shopping. In this case also there is no pleading that the writ petition and thereafter appeal was filed in Delhi High Court, under bonafide belief that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appellant was pursuing the remedies in wrong court with due diligence. The appellant, thereafter, caused a further delay of 20 days in filing this appeal, which he has not explained. The appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. This appeal is barred by limitation by 697 days, which has not been sufficiently explained by the appellant. - decided against the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal. 2. Application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. 3. Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. 4. Bonafide belief and due diligence in pursuing remedies. Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing the Appeal: The registry reported the appeal to be beyond time by 697 days. The appellant sought condonation of this delay, citing the pursuit of a writ petition in the Delhi High Court as the reason for the delay. 2. Application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for Condonation of Delay: The appellant argued that the delay should be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as they were pursuing the remedy in the Delhi High Court in good faith. The court noted that Section 14 is intended to provide relief against the bar of limitation in cases of mistaken remedy or selection of a wrong forum. The Supreme Court's interpretation in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department & Ors. was cited, emphasizing that the bar of limitation should not affect a person honestly doing their best to get their case tried on merits. 3. Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court: The appellant initially filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, which was later converted into an appeal. The Delhi High Court, however, raised an issue of territorial jurisdiction, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which held that appellate jurisdiction depends on the location of the authority that passed the original order. The Delhi High Court eventually dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the appellant to approach the jurisdictional High Court. 4. Bonafide Belief and Due Diligence in Pursuing Remedies: The court scrutinized whether the appellant was genuinely pursuing the remedy in the wrong forum with due diligence. It was noted that despite being aware of the jurisdictional issue by September 22, 2010, the appellant continued to pursue the appeal in the Delhi High Court for over a year without contesting the jurisdiction. The court found that the appellant's actions post-September 22, 2010, were not in bonafide pursuit of litigious activity. The appellant's delay in filing the appeal in the correct jurisdictional court was not sufficiently explained, and the court observed that the appellant's continued pursuit in the Delhi High Court was not in good faith. Conclusion: The application for condonation of delay was rejected. The court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as the delay was not sufficiently explained, and the appeal was consequently dismissed as barred by limitation.
|
