9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SUPREME COURT ] where it was held that The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. There are no justification in this application seeking condonation of delay of 1191 days in filing the appeal - appeal dismissed. - Application Diary No. 858422021 Appeal Diary No. 868412021 - INTERIM ORDER NO. 62/2022 - Dated:- 11-4-2022 - MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri L.S. Seth, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri Nitin Ranjan, Deputy Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SCC 359). Reading the said judgment, it also becomes clear that filing of Review Petition is no impediment to the filing of the special leave petition. Large number of judgments were cited before us by learned counsel. 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 whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant. 6.1 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, [(2011) CPJ 63 (SC)] has observed that : It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras. 6.2 The decision of Anshul Aggarwal (supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. 10. The courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. However the court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for want of bona fides of an inaction or negligence would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the court for condoning the delay. This Court has time and again held that when mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay on s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
