9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the pleas about availing the benefit of Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme cannot be held to be a sufficient cause because Scheme came into effect from September, 2019 whereas the period of limitation to file the impugned appeal had expired on 11th March, 2019 itself i.e. almost six months prior the Scheme could had come into effect the period of limitation to file impugned appeal had already expired. Another reason about the death of the father in law of the appellant is also an event post-expiration of the period of limitation. None of the said two grounds explains the delay that occurred between 11.12.2018 and 11.03.2019. The non-filing of appeal by the consultant also is not the sufficient cause because appellant was required to pursue his consultant and to ensure that his appeal gets filed before 11.03.2018 but appellant failed - the same is definite inaction on part of appellant resulting out of his negligence. Hence none of the grounds could be considered as the sufficient cause due to which the appellant was restrained from filing the appeal during the prescribed period. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VERSUS MST. KATIJ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant s case, in case of no appeal being filed, became eligible for declaration under Arrears category of the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) . The application, accordingly, was filed on 20.12.2019 pursuant whereto the payment of ₹ 9,02,664/- was required to be deposited. The time to deposit the same was extended till 31st of March, 2020. Prior the said date, there was announced the lockdown due to global COVID-19 pandemic and the date of said payment was extended to 30th June, 2020. During this period, the appellant s father in law expired on 04.04.2020. The document is impressed upon along with the copy of permission for vehicle pass in favour of the appellant permitting him to travel from his place in Udaipur to Muzaffarpur, the place of his father in law. Due to lockdown itself that appellant got stuck at Muzaffarpur and could return to Udaipur on 6th July, 2020. Accordingly, he could not meet the deadline of payment up to 30th June, 2020 under said SVLDRS. Though, there was a request for further extension of payment date by various Trade and Industrial associations but keeping in view, the uncertainty of the outcome that the appellant prefer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the averments contained in the Affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay. But, the Hon ble Apex Court held that explanation of delay has to be reasonable and satisfactory which is an essential pre-requisite to condonation of delay. The business of the Counsel in other matters was held by Hon ble Apex Court as unreasonable and unsatisfactory explanation and condonation of delay of 565 days in filing the appeal accordingly was declined: The Hon ble Apex Court directed that irrespective the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable ground. 5. Section 5 in the limitation Act is the relevant provision. Hon ble Madras High Court in the decision of Krishna Vs Chathappan, ILR 13 Mad 269 has held that in construing Section 5, it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. (i) The expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. This legal right which has accrue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e obtaining fact-situation. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the Counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the Courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. (vii) The Concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former Doctrine of Prejudice is attracted, whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been mentioned to have been given to the appellant s consultant Shri Vivek Mehta for filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The appeal should have been filed on or before 11th March, 2019. The appellant was required to be diligent and conscious about the appeal to have been filed by his consultant within the said prescribed period. We observe that the entire application is absolutely silent about exercising said diligence by the appellant. 10. Appellant failed to communicate with the said consultant during the prescribed period. It was deliberate inaction and negligence on part of appellant. We also observe that on last date of hearing also, it was observed that no reason has been given by the appellant i.e. the explanation as to why his consultant could not file the appeal in time and why any communication from the consultant has not been brought on record to substantiate the said fact. Four weeks time as requested by the appellant, was granted to explain the same. After seeking said time though the appellant has filed his Affidavit dated 17.03.2022 but the perusal reveals that the said Affidavit is also vague and is again miserably silent about any due diligence on part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
