2024 (6) TMI 496 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 891 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Petition - sufficient cause for delay or not - HELD THAT - There is no dispute about the fact that generally the lis is not to be rejected on the technical ground of limitation but certainly if the filing of appeal suffers from inordinate delay, then the duty of the Court to consider the application to condone the delay before entering into the merit of the lis - It requires to refer herein that the Law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. It is settled position of Law that when a litigant does not act with bona fide motive and at the same time, due to inaction and laches on its part, the period of limitation for filing the appeal expires, such lack of bona fide and gross inaction and negligence are the vital factors which should be taken into consideration while considering the question of condonation of delay. The Hon ble Apex Court in Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vrs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. 1961 (5) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT has held that merely because sufficient cause has been made out in the facts of the given case, there is no right to the appellant to have delay condoned. Thus, the expression sufficient cause has been dealt with which means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has not acted deliberately or remained inactive . This Court, after taking into consideration the ratio laid by the Hon ble Apex Court as also the explanation furnished in the delay condonation application, is of the view that no sufficient cause has been shown to condone inordinate delay of 891 days in filing the appeal. The COD application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay of 891 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Petition.
2. Restoration of Tax Appeal No. 19 of 2016 dismissed for default.

Summary:

1. Condonation of Delay:
The petitioner filed an application (I.A. No. 1407 of 2024) seeking condonation of delay of 891 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP No. 83 of 2020). The delay was attributed to the internal procedures of the petitioner, a Public Sector Undertaking, which involved file movements and obtaining concurrence at different levels. The respondent objected, arguing that the delay was excessive and lacked sufficient reason.

The court referred to various legal precedents, emphasizing that the Law of Limitation, enshrined in the maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium," aims to ensure timely litigation. The court highlighted that sufficient cause must be shown for condonation of delay, and the party should not have acted negligently or with a lack of bona fides. The court cited several judgments, including Brijesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, and Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Limited & Anr., to underscore that delay should not be condoned mechanically, especially for government bodies.

2. Restoration of Tax Appeal:
The Tax Appeal No. 19 of 2016 was dismissed for default on 28.07.2017 due to non-compliance with an order dated 14.07.2017. The petitioner sought restoration of this appeal through CMP No. 83 of 2020. The court scrutinized the explanation provided by the petitioner, which included forwarding documents to the legal section and consulting empaneled lawyers. However, the court found the explanation insufficient and lacking bona fide.

Judgment:
The application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 1407 of 2024) was dismissed due to the lack of sufficient cause. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP No. 83 of 2020) and any pending interlocutory applications were also dismissed. The court reiterated that the law of limitation must be applied with rigor and that negligence or inaction on the part of the petitioner cannot justify condoning such an inordinate delay.