9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the petitioner is decided beyond reasonable doubt.
It cannot be abstained from providing a leeway to the petitioner with regard to delay in filing special leave petition as sufficiency of cause has to be judged in pragmatic manner so as to advance the cause of justice. In the given facts and circumstances and after due consideration of all the available materials on record, it is deemed appropriate to condone the delay of 292 days as it cannot be ignored that if appeals brought by the Government are lost for such defaults, it is the public interest which gets severely affected.
Conclusion - The condonation of the 292-day delay allowed, granting the appellant leave to file the memorandum of appeal within the statutory period.
Application allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, on the request of the accused persons the said total value of the said cheques was reduced to Rs. 25 Crores. During the said business transactions, the appellant/company used to supply materials to the accused company from time to time and in turn the accused persons used to issue from time to time cheques towards relinquishment of their liability against such supply of materials and accordingly the liability of the accused company stood fluctuated from time to time. After repeated persuasions by the accused persons, the appellant/company agreed to hold a joint meeting on 18th July, 2011 wherein they agreed to reduce the liability of the accused company to Rs. 11.50 Crores provided the accused persons would strictly abide by the undertakings given by them regarding relinquishment of their said liability within the stipulated period of time. Almost immediately thereafter, to generate confidence, trust and faith in the appellant/company about them, the cheques already issued by the accused persons which were lying with the appellant/company towards security as stated above for a total amount of Rs. 25 Crores were replaced by fresh post dated cheques for the same amount. But, soon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and circumstances of total dishonouring the aforesaid undertaking of payment by the accused persons, vide letter dated 08.02.2012, the appellant/company called upon the accused persons to make payment of the entire defaulted amount or to construe the mutual settlement as stand cancelled with a liberty to claim the entire amount of outstanding dues along with interest 11% on monthly rent basis from the date the appellant/company is out of pocket till realisation. Again no payment was made by the accused persons. Thus as on 16 January, 2012 the total amount due from the accused company was Rs. 17,90,43,619.04 (Rupees Seventeen Crores Ninety Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred Nineteen and Four Paise Only) . 6. In the above premises the appellant/company issued a demand notice dated 11.02.2012 through its Advocate under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act calling upon the accused persons to pay Rs. 18,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Crores Only) being the total sum covered by the said four dishonoured cheques to the complainant company within 15 days of receipt of the said notice to evade prosecution, inter alia, under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner before the Learned Trial Court. Mr. Ganguly has also stated that the notice directing the petitioner to show cause as issued by the Learned Trial Court vide its order dated 21.11.2022 was not served upon the petitioner due to the change of address of the regional office of the petitioner. As a result of which the Trial Court dismissed the complaint case for non prosecution and acquitted the accused through the impugned order. Therefore, he has tried to make this Court understand that the petitioner is a bona fide litigant and has always taken proper and diligent steps to assert its rights subject to knowledge of relevant facts and petitioner is not guilty of any laches, negligence or willful default or delay in prosecuting the instant litigation. 11. In support of his contention, Mr. Ganguly has relied on the case of * Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Binod Kumar Maheswari and ohers reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 1339 12. Per contra, Ld. Sr. Counsel, Mr. Phiroze Edulji, appearing on behalf of the respondents has argued that the petitioner has not even deemed it fit and proper to explain the time period between 14-01-2020 to the time when the nation- wide lockdown was an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vernment company does not entitle the application to be admitted automatically. 16. In his concluding argument, Ld. Counsel has tried to make this Court understand that it is an admitted position, that the office of the petitioner was functioning on and from November' 2020 and there is no reason explained as to why the petitioner in spite of having the knowledge that their Learned Advocate does not intend to represent them, had not appointed another Advocate and / or has caused search to find out the fate of the proceeding which was initiated at their behest. 17. In support of his contention, Mr. Edulji has taken assistance of the following cases:- * Union of India vs. Rishabh Constructions Pvt Ltd. taken from ARB.A. (COMM.) 44/2024 * Pathapati Subba Reddy vs Special Deputy Collector reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 * Government of Maharashtra vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited reported in (2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 460 Ratio of the cases relied on behalf of the parties:- 18. Mr. Edulji through the referred cases of Rishabh Constructions (supra) Pathapati Subba Reddy (supra) & Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited (supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 292 days in preferring the instant appeal. I have duly considered the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the parties especially the reasons assigned by the petitioner for delay. 22. Considering the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant it appears to me that the prayer for condonation of delay is mainly on three counts. First one is The appellant/petitioner was not served with the show cause as issued by the Learned Trial Court vide its order dated 21.11.2022. Next is the then conducting advocate for the appellant/petitioner did not inform the members /employees/representative of the appellant/petitioner that he has not been taking any steps on behalf of the appellant/petitioner before the Learned Trial Court. Lastly, the appellant/petitioner was unaware about the negligent conduct of the then conducting advocate due to which the case was dismissed for non-prosecution. 23. In my humble opinion, any party to an application even if it is a government organization should strictly adhere to the rules of limitation and therefore no relaxation should automatically be granted to a party for being a government organization due to procedural delay. Having regard to the afores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must, however, be taken to distinguish an "explanation" from an "excuse". Although people tend to see "explanation" and "excuse" as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real. 32. An "excuse" is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an "excuse" would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication. 33. Be that as it may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred to above. 35. We find that the High Court in the present case assigned the following reasons in support of its order: 35.1. The law of limitation was founded on public policy, and that some lapse on the part of a litigant, by itself, would not be sufficient to deny condonation of delay as the same could cause miscarriage of justice. 35.2. The expression "sufficient cause" is elastic enough for courts to do substantial justice. Further, when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against one another, the former would prevail. 35.3. It is upon the courts to consider the sufficiency of cause shown for the delay, and the length of delay is not always decisive while exercising discretion in such matters if the delay is properly explained. Further, the merits of a claim were also to be considered when deciding such applications for condonation of delay. 35.4. Further, a distinction should be drawn between inordinate unexplained delay and explained delay, where in the present case, the first respondent had sufficiently explained the delay on account of negligence on part of the government functionaries and the government counsel on record before the Ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SCC 408 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 163], SCC p. 410, paras 7-8) "7. But while concluding as above, it was necessary for the Court to also be conscious of the bureaucratic delay and the slow pace in reaching a government decision and the routine way of deciding whether the State should prefer an appeal against a judgment adverse to it. Even while observing that the law of limitation would harshly affect the party, the Court felt that the delay in the appeal filed by the State, should not be condoned. 8. Regard should be had in similar such circumstances to the impersonal nature of the Government's functioning where individual officers may fail to act responsibly. This in turn, would result in injustice to the institutional interest of the State. If the appeal filed by the State are lost for individual default, those who are at fault, will not usually be individually affected." ( emphasis supplied ) 41. Having bestowed serious consideration to the rival contentions, we feel that the High Court's decision [Union of India v. Sheo Raj, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5511] to condone the delay on account of the first respondent's inability to present the appeal within time, for the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
