SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. Nagarathna, Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
The State of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Akshaya Jewellers – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4486 of 2022
Decided On : 03-08-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay in filing the petition (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against condonation of delay (Para 3) |
| 3. court's reasoning on delay (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. cited precedents on delay (Para 8) |
| 5. final dismissal of the appeal due to delay (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER :
1. Although, Leave has been granted in this case as this case was connected with other appeals, it is nevertheless brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel on both sides that there is a delay of 390 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, which is now converted to an appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even before the High Court, there was a delay of 647 days in filing O.T. Rev. No.103/2018. The High Court refused to condone the delay. Consequently, the revision petition has not been heard on merits. As a result, the interest of the State has been prejudiced. He, therefore, submitted that delay of 390 days in filing the Special Leave Petition may be condoned and further, the delay of 647 days in filing the Tax Revision Petition before the High Court may also be condoned and the matter may be remanded to the High Court for consideration of the case on merits. He submitted that there are genuine reasons cited for the delay in filing this appeal and also the delay in filing the revision petition before the High Court.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the gross delay of 647 days in filing the revision petition before the High Court has not been explained to the satisfaction of the High Court, which has rightly dismissed the revision petition and similarly the State has delayed the filing of Special Leave Petition, now converted to an appeal, which is 390 days. The same has also not been explained inasmuch as there is no indication as to what happened between April, 2019 and 2021 and the semblance of explanation that the file has been mixed up is not a sufficient reason for this Court to condone the delay. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be dismissed on the ground of delay.
4. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. At the outset, we find that delay of 390 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, now converted into Civil Appeal, has not been explained to the satisfaction of this Court, inasmuch as there is no narration as to what happened between 18.02.2019, the date on which the impugned order was passed till 25.04.2019. Thereafter the only explanation given is that the file had got mixed up with some other files and, therefore, ultimately only on 13.01.2021, the same was noticed and steps were taken to send a letter to the Office of the Advocate General of the State of Kerala and a copy to the Special Govt. Pleader (Taxes) and thereafter, steps were taken to file the appeal on 22.07.2021.
5. We find that the reason cited for the gross delay of 390 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, now converted into a Civil Appeal, does not pursuade us to condone the delay. The explanation offered is not satisfactory and not sufficient in the eye of law to condone the delay.
6. Hence, we dismiss the appeal on the ground of delay itself.
7. In fact, there is a consistent delay in filing by the petitioner/appellant inasmuch as there was delay of 647 days in filing the revision petition before the High Court and 390 days in filing the Special Leave Petition before this Court, which is not explained to the satisfaction of the High Court or this Court respectively.
8. In this regard, we rely upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another (2012) 3 SCC 563 and State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Bherulal (2020) 10 SCC 654.
9. Hence, the application for condonation of delay in filing the Special Leave Petition, now converted into Civil Appeal, is dismissed and, consequently, Civil Appeal is also dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
10. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another
Delays in filing appeals must be satisfactorily explained; inadequate reasons result in dismissal of applications for condonation.
Huge delay of 1,633 days in filing Special Leave Petition cannot be condoned.
Delay cannot be condoned without a plausible and acceptable explanation.
Sufficient and cogent reasons are required to explain the delay in filing, and government inefficiency in adhering to the period of limitation may not be condoned by the court.
Applicants must clearly specify delay duration and reasons in applications for condonation of delay; failure to do so may lead to deficiencies.
Courts may refuse to condone delays in filing petitions if the explanation offered is unsatisfactory.
Period of limitation – Condonation of delay – No event or circumstance arising after expiry of limitation can constitute sufficient cause – Expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be liberally interpret....
Condonation of delay should not be routine and should only be granted when there is a sufficient cause, as emphasized by the court in this judgment.
Adherence to the period of limitation and discouragement of casual approach by government and public authorities in filing petitions with the Supreme Court.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.