2020 (8) TMI 861 - HC - Money Laundering

Provisional order of attachment by order - right cause before the wrong forum - sufficient cause for delay or not - Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 - HELD THAT - The expression sufficient cause has received the attention of this Court and the Hon ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. The expression sufficient cause which also finds a place in Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been examined by the Hon ble Apex Court and it has been consistently held that sufficient cause should receive liberal interpretation rather than pedantic approach. It is no doubt true that no litigant would stand to benefit by approaching the Courts belatedly. As such wherever issue regarding delay would arise there may be liberal approach while examining the plea of delay it is not the length of delay but it is the cause for delay which would be of paramount consideration. However long the delay might be if the cause shown is sufficient or in the proximity of truth such delay deserves to be condoned. The writ petitions had been filed on 13.12.2016 and there is not even a whisper in the writ petitions as to what prevented the petitioners from challenging the order of Adjudicating Authority dated 14.09.2016. In other words at every step petitioners have been exhibiting laxity negligence carelessness and what is applicable to a rustic villager or a person who is not conversant with the worldly affairs i.e. to plead ignorance about nuances of filing appeals cannot be extended to the petitioners herein because first petitioner was a Group A officer in Government of Karnataka and the second appellant is none other than his wife. In other words they are fully conversant with the nuances of filing petitions and appeals as is evident from their acts in challenging orders passed by authorities in different forums at different stages. There is no question of law much less substantial question of law as framed in the appeal memorandum which requires to be framed in these appeals to be adjudicated and answered - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal.
2. Misleading the writ court regarding the status of appeals.
3. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
4. Substantial questions of law for consideration.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The appellants challenged the common order dated 26.02.2020 by the Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed their appeals due to a delay of 657 days in filing. The appellants argued that the delay should not defeat their right to appeal as the statute provides for such a right. They contended that the delay was due to an inadvertent lapse and that the entire proceedings had been challenged in the writ petitions. The court, however, noted that the appellants had not specifically challenged the adjudicating authority's order dated 14.09.2016 in their writ petitions. The court emphasized that "sufficient cause" under the Limitation Act should be liberally interpreted, but in this case, the delay was due to negligence and mis-statements by the appellants, which did not warrant condonation.

2. Misleading the Writ Court:
The appellants had misled the writ court by stating that they had already filed appeals against the adjudicating authority's order, which was factually incorrect. This mis-statement influenced the writ court's decision to dismiss the petitions, believing that the appeals were pending. The court highlighted that the learned Single Judge was misled by the appellants' submission, which resulted in the dismissal of the writ petitions.

3. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The appellants argued that they were prosecuting their right cause before the wrong forum, and hence, Section 14 of the Limitation Act should apply. However, the court found that the appellants did not challenge the adjudicating authority's order in the writ petitions, nor did they seek its quashing. Therefore, the benefits of Section 14 did not apply to the appellants, as they had not shown due diligence in pursuing their legal remedies.

4. Substantial Questions of Law for Consideration:
The court examined whether there were any substantial questions of law arising from the appeals. It concluded that there were none, as the appellants' negligence and mis-statements did not provide a basis for condoning the delay. The court emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, but in this case, the appellants' conduct did not merit such consideration.

Judgment:
(i) The appeals were dismissed, and the order dated 26.02.2020 by the Appellate Tribunal was affirmed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) All pending applications were consigned to records.