9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enacting law of limitation is not to destroy the rights of the parties but to see that the uncertainty should not prevail for unlimited period. The meaning to be assigned to the expression sufficient cause occurring in Section 5 of the 1963 Act should be such so as to do substantial justice between the parties. The existence of sufficient cause depends upon facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied in deciding such cases. We do not find any ground to condone the colossal delay of 733 and 739 days in filing the appeals. The question regarding whether there is sufficient cause or not depends upon each case and primarily is a question of fact to be considered taking into totality of events which had taken place in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... digarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) in ITA No. 330/Chd/2016, for the assessment year 2011-12, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in not allowing the appeal filed by the Appellant, especially when in identical cases, the same relief has been granted? ii) Whether the learned Tribunal erred in not considering the settled law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Dass (supra)? iii) Whether interest received received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is in the nature interest or whether it is a part of the compen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeals. Since, the appeals were barred by limitation, the applications have been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 1963 Act ) for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The primary question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 733 in ITA Nos. 133 and 134 of 2019 and 739 days in ITA-135. 6. Examining the legal position relating to condonation of delay under Section 5 of the 1963 Act, it may be observed that the Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil. 7. It was further noticed by the Apex Court in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 892 as under:- ..... It is not necessary at this stage to discuss each and every judgment cited before us for the simple reason that Section 5 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n deciding such cases. 9. The Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. and R.B. Ramlingam's cases (supra) noticed that the courts should adopt liberal approach where delay is of short period whereas the proof required should be strict where the delay is inordinate. 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/appellant is required t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
