9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal has noticed that order dated August 1, 2008 was passed after affording fourteen opportunities to the appellant who was avoiding proceedings on one pretext or the other. There has been an inordinate delay of 549 days in filing the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to demonstrate any steps taken against the counsel for his negligence. Such a plea without there being any material to substantiate cannot be accepted as such pleas invariably can be taken in all cases as a general defense. Appeal dismissed. - VATAP No. 47 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 5-7-2012 - AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND SANDHAWALIA G.S., JJ. For the Appellant : Sandeep Goyal The judgment of the court was delivered by AJAY KUMAR MITTAL J. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Level Screening Committee shall lie before the Tribunal. Accordingly, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal on July 13, 2005, along with an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal vide order dated August 1, 2008 (annexure A5) dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation after noticing that fourteen opportunities had been provided to the appellant and the appeal was never pursued seriously. Thereafter, on March 5, 2010, the dealer received summon for the recovery of sales tax arrears and approached the counsel as according to it, the case was still pending before the Tribunal. On enquiries, it was found that the counsel for the dealer had received a letter on September 10, 2008, from the Tribunal who misplaced the same. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of delay as there was no intimation from the counsel and, therefore, the appellant could not file the application earlier. 4. Examining the legal position relating to condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short, the 1963 Act ), it may be observed that the honourable Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation [2010] 5 SCC 459 laying down the broad principles for adjudicating the issue of condonation of delay, in paras 14 and 15 observed as under: 14. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The Legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mple reason that section of the Limitation Act, 1963, does not lay down any standard or objective test. The test of 'sufficient cause' is purely an individualistic test. It is not an objective test. Therefore, no two cases can be treated alike. The statute of limitation has left the concept of 'sufficient cause' delightfully undefined, thereby leaving to the court a well-intentioned discretion to decide the individual cases whether circumstances exist establishing sufficient cause. There are no categories of sufficient cause. The categories of sufficient cause are never exhausted. Each case spells out a unique experience to be dealt with by the court as such. It was also recorded that: For the aforestated reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nate. Further, it was also observed that judgments dealing with the condonation of delay may not lay down any standard or objective test but is purely an individualistic test. The court is required to examine while adjudicating the matter relating to condonation of delay on exercising judicial discretion on individual facts involved therein. There does not exist any exhaustive list constituting sufficient cause. The applicant/petitioner is required to establish that inspite of acting with due care and caution, the delay had occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and was inevitable. 8. Adverting to the factual matrix in this case, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The question regarding whether there is sufficient cause or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
