Litigants must vigilantly monitor proceedings and cannot condone inordinate delay solely by blaming counsel's negligence; appointing counsel does not absolve duty to ensure active pursuit of rights.

JUDGMENT :

TEJAS KARIA, J.

CM APPL Nos. 18272/2026 and 18273/2026
1. Exemptions are allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The Applications stand disposed of.

CM APPL No. 18274/2026
3. The present Application has been filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay of 56 days in filing the Appeal.

4. For the reasons disclosed in the Application, the same is allowed. The delay of 56 days in filing the Appeal is hereby condoned.

5. The Application stands disposed of.

CM APPL No. 18275/2026
6. The present Application has been filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay of 38 days in re-filing the Appeal.

7. For the reasons disclosed in the Application, the same is allowed. The delay of 38 days in re-filing the Appeal is hereby condoned.

8. The Application stands disposed of.

LPA 152/2026
9. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 11.11.2025 (“Impugned Order”) passed in W.P.(C) No. 5039/2018 (“Writ Petition”), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant.

10. Brief factual matrix giving rise to the filing of the present Appeal is:

10.1. The Appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 05.08.1980 under the name of M/s Precision Writing Point Private Limited. Thereafter, the name of the Appellant was changed to M/s Sanghvi Writing Point Private Limited on 10.08.1993.
10.2. In the year 2000, the Appellant filed a reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (“BIFR”), being Case No. 316/2000 under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The Appellant was declared a sick industrial unit by BIFR on 31.07.2001. Thereafter, IDBI was appointed as an Operating Agency on 29.03.2004 for preparation of a rehabilitation scheme, which was subsequently approved by BIFR. According to the Appellant, due to managerial problems and financial difficulties, some provident fund dues were paid belatedly.
10.3. On 01.03.2006, the Appellant filed an application before the Respondent Authorities seeking waiver of damages that may become payable under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“Act”).
10.4. On 28.08.2006, Respondent No. 3, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (“RPF Commissioner”), issued a Show Cause Notice calling upon the Appellant to pay interest of Rs.7,84,881/- under Section 7Q of the Act and damages of Rs.23,56,669/- under Section 14B of the Act, aggregating to Rs.31,41,550/-, for the period May 1983 to February 2006. The Appellant replied to he Show Cause Notice on 13.09.2006 stating that it had been declared a sick industrial unit. It was further stated by the Appellant in its reply that the rehabilitation scheme was pending before BIFR and that the application seeking waiver of damages and interest was also pending consideration.
10.5. Thereafter, the Appellant made further representations seeking waiver of damages and interest and also placed on record that it had paid a sum of Rs.7,84,971/- towards interest during the period 11.06.2003 to 05.05.2010.
10.6. On 26.04.2007, Vijaya Bank issued a certificate stating that its loan had been cleared, and the Appellant filed the said certificate dated 26.04.2007 before BIFR on 02.05.2007.
10.7. On 09.05.2007, Respondent No. 2 informed the Appellant that its request for waiver of interest had been rejected and directed it to submit the rehabilitation scheme for consideration of waiver of damages under Section 14B of the Act. The Appellant filed the rehabilitation scheme on 12.06.2007, but the Respondents sent a letter dated 06.10.2008 stating therein that no such scheme had been rece