Sufficient cause - Indian Laws - General

Expression Sufficient cause Given the object sought to be achieved under both the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, that is, the speedy resolution of disputes, the expression sufficient cause is not elastic enough to cover long delays beyond the period provided by the appeal provision itself. Besides, the expression sufficient cause is not itself a loose panacea for the ill of pressing negligent and stale claims. [ GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA (WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT- 2021 (3) TMI 1458 - SUPREME COURT (LB)) This Court , in Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 (12) TMI 274 - SUPREME COURT , has held: 9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word sufficient is adequate or enough , inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word sufficient embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, sufficient cause 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 diligently or remained inactive . However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the court that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See Manindra Land and Building Corpn. Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee- 1963 (5) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT , Mata Din v. A. Narayanan- 1969 (8) TMI 79 - SUPREME COURT , Parimal v. Veena [(2011) 3 SCC 545 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 1 : AIR 2011 SC 1150] and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai 2015 (3) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT ) In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar- 1963 (12) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURTthis Court explained the difference between a good cause and a sufficient cause and observed that- every sufficient cause is a good cause and vice versa. However, if any difference exists it can only be that the requirement of good cause is complied with on a lesser degree of proof than that of sufficient cause . The expression sufficient cause should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. (Vide Madanlal v. Shyamlal- 2001 (11) TMI 1046 - SUPREME COURT and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao- 2002 (2) TMI 1280 - SUPREME COURT .)