The main legal point established in the judgment is that 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay implies the presence of legal and adequate reasons, and the court must consider the conduct of the parties and whether the delay could easily be avoided by the applicant acting with normal care and caution.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. In the matter of filing appeals, we cannot think of a situation where there would not be an element of negligence if appeal is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed. Thus, every delay would have some facet or the other of negligence. Therefore, while considering an application praying to the Court that delay in filing an appeal should be condoned, the issue has to be considered by the Court with reference to whether the appellants was bona fide taking steps to prosecute the appellate remedy. In this consideration pertaining to whether delay in filing the appeal needs to be condoned or not, the facts have not to be construed pedantically i.e. each day’s events have not to be seen separately. The period has to be looked at holistically with reference to the conduct of the party. The reason is that the presumption would be that a party would like to avail such remedies as are available to it and would not consciously abandon the same. Further, when the appellants is a corporate entity, the hierarchical structure in the organization and the decision making process has to be considered. If costs are a good recompense to the party inconvenienced due to delay, costs should be imposed while condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

2. In the decision reported as (2010) 8 SCC 685 Balwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. the Supreme Court has guided that where the explanation for the delay is reasonable or plausible and reflects nor mal behaviour of a common prudent person, a Court should tilt the judicial discretion in favour of such an applicant. The said decision further explains that ‘sufficient cause’ implies the presence of legal and adequate reasons. In paragraph 38, the Court expanded as under :-

“38. Above are the principles which should control the exercise of judicial discretion vested in the court under these provisions. The explained delay should be clearly understood in contradistinction to inordinate unexplained delay. Delay is just one of the ingredients which has to be considered by the court. In addition to this, the court must also take into account the conduct of the parties, bona fide reasons for condonation of delay and whether such delay could easily be avoided by the applicant acting with normal care and caution. The statutory provisions mandate that applications for condonation of delay and applications belatedly filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation for bringing the legal representatives on record, should be rejected unless sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay. The larger Benches as well as equi- Benches of this Curt have consistently followed these principles and have either allowed or declined to condone the delay in filing such applications. Thus, it is the requirement of law that these applications cannot be allowed as a matter of right and even in a routine manner. An application must essentially satisfy the above stated ingredients; then alone the court would be inclined to condone the delay in the filing of such applications”.

3. Guided by the statement of law above noted we proceed to consider CM No.9141/2014.

4. Laying a challenge to the impugned order dated January 29, 2014 and the appeal being filed on May 20, 2014, excluding 30 days time granted as per law for the appeal to be filed and further excluding the time spent for the Registry of this Court for preparing the certified copy of the impugned order, the delay in filing the appeal is of 73 days.

5. Sufficient cause pleaded for delay to be condoned is that having applied for a certified copy of the impugned order on January 30, 2014 i.e. the day next after the order was pronounced, when the appellants enquired from the Registry on February 08, 2014, certified copy could not be provided. It is pleaded that the appellants obtained the certified copy only on May 02, 2014. It is pleaded that in the meanwhile appellant No.1 viz. Life Technologies Corporation was acquired by another com