9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as there is a delay of nearly one year prior to the imposition of lockdown. This Court also fails to understand how the filing or pendency of an SLP in another matter prevented the Appellants from filing an appeal against the judgment impugned in the present case. It is a settled law that an Appellant must make out a sufficient cause for delay, to enable the Court to condone the same. Parties who are not vigilant and diligent in prosecuting and agitating their rights and act as mere fence sitters, cannot be permitted to take advantage of their lethargy and laxity. It is evident that the Appellants slept over their rights from 25.02.2019 to 25.03.2020 and cannot take advantage of their own wrong and seek condonation of delay. The Appellants have not made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 921 days and, therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed. Since we are not inclined to condone the enormous delay of 921 days, we do not intend to enter into the merits of the appeal - Application dismissed. - LPA 386/2021 - - - Dated:- 25-10-2021 - HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH Appellants Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submits that the maximum limit for benefit of Duty Credit Scrip under the Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme (for short IEIS Scheme ) is ₹ 1 crore, as per Notification No.43 dated 25.09.2013 and, therefore, claim of the Respondent (original petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1743/2019) was rejected initially by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Hyderabad vide order dated 30.01.2018 and thereafter, by Director General of Foreign Trade vide order dated 16.11.2018. Learned counsel submits that the Notification No.43 dated 25.09.2013 is explicitly clear and unambiguous and permits no flexibility in the grant of benefit beyond the maximum limit prescribed and the relevant clause of the Notification has been ignored by the learned Single Judge. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents vehemently opposes the application seeking condonation of delay. It is submitted that even if it is assumed in favour of the Appellants, for the sake of argument, that there was a lockdown on account of Covid-19, followed by restricted functioning in the Government offices for some time, there is no explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. It is an undisputed position that there is a delay of 921 days in filing the present appeal. The reasons/grounds set out in the application seeking condonation of delay are in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 and are reproduced hereunder:- 2. That on passing of the impugned judgment and order dated 25.2.2019, there was deliberation in the department as to the next steps to be taken in the matter, in view of the fact that in the same matter related to Annual IEIS Scheme, the issue was already under litigation with regard to the correct interpretation of Notification No.43/RE-2013)/2009-14 dated 25.09.2013 by which amendments were made in the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2009-14. The Division bench of the Delhi High Court had passed an order dated 12.04.2018 in WP 5082 of 2017 of M/s Welldone Exim and the respondents had also filed SLP(C) No. 012878 of 2019 - Diary No.41394 of 2018 in October 2018 , seeking a review of the order dated 12.04.2018 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The matter was then sub-judice in the Apex Court. It was expected then that the matter would soon be decided and there may not be any need for filing a review, since any order the SLP c no. 012878 of 20' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17.04.2020 The Central Government Standing Counsel received communication from the Department that LPA has to be filed against the order dated 25.02.2019. 04.05.2020 Lockdown was further extended for 14 days. 18.05.2020 Lockdown was further extended for 14 days. 01.06.2020 Unlock 1 process was initiated in phased manner; however the Department could not function on its full capacity. 11.06.2020 The Supreme Court took notice and ordered that Contempt Petition, if any, pending before the High Court shall remain stayed until further orders. (Annexure R 2 - order dated 11 June 2020 of the Apex Court). Thereby, the Supreme Court had observed that contempt, if any, pending shall remain stayed until further orders. 01.07.2020 Unlock 2 was initiated in phased manner; however the Department could not function on its full capacity. 01.08.2020 Unlock 3 was initiated in phased manner; however the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... py of the LPA from the Department again for filing. 8. Having perused the aforesaid paragraphs, we find merit in the contention of the Respondent that there is no explanation which can be called as a sufficient cause for the delay between 25.02.2019 when the impugned judgment was pronounced and 25.03.2020 when the Nationwide lockdown was imposed. The timelines mentioned in the application are primarily focussed on explaining the delay between 25.03.2020 till the filing of the appeal, for the period prior thereto the only explanation is the filing of the SLP in the case of M/s. Welldone Exim (supra). Even if this Court was to exclude the period of lockdown, the benefit cannot inure to the advantage of the Appellants inasmuch as there is a delay of nearly one year prior to the imposition of lockdown. This Court also fails to understand how the filing or pendency of an SLP in another matter prevented the Appellants from filing an appeal against the judgment impugned in the present case. It is a settled law that an Appellant must make out a sufficient cause for delay, to enable the Court to condone the same. Parties who are not vigilant and diligent in prosecuting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means the law is hard but it is the law , stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, inconvenience is not a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute. 13. The statute of limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 28, p. 266: 605. Policy of the Limitation Acts.- The courts have expressed at least thre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
