Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited - Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Dhanbad - Respondent
C.M.P. No. 83 of 2020 with I.A. No. 1407 of 2024
Decided On : 20-02-2024
[DELAY CONDONATION] - [CIVIL PROCEDURE] - [LIMITATION ACT, SECTION 5] - [The court discussed the principles of condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that sufficient cause must be shown for any delay in filing appeals. The court highlighted that the law of limitation is strict and must be adhered to, even for government entities. The interpretations of 'sufficient cause' were explored, indicating that negligence or lack of bona fides would negate any claim for condonation. The court ultimately found that the petitioner failed to provide adequate justification for the 891-day delay, leading to the dismissal of the application.]
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No. 1407 of 2024
1. The instant application has been filed for condonation of delay of 891 days in preferring the Civil Miscellaneous Petition.
2. It has been submitted that the instant restoration application has been filed for restoration of Tax Appeal No. 19 of 2016, which has been dismissed for default on 28.07.2017 for non-compliance of order dated 14.07.2017 passed in C.M.P. No. 54 of 2017.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tax Appeal No. 19 of 2016 has been filed against the order dated 17.12.2015 passed by learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata. But inadvertently, the defects pointed out by the office could not be removed in the said tax appeal, as such it was dismissed for default and when the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of said Tax Appeal No. 19 of 2016, which stood dismissed for default for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 14.07.2017 passed in CMP No. 54 of 2017, the petitioner preferred the present Civil Misc. Petition being CMP No. 83 of 2020.
4. It has further been submitted so far delay in preferring CMP No. 83 of 2020 is concerned, upon receipt of memo in CMP No. 54 of 2017, the relevant documents along with case file was forwarded to the legal Section of Company for taking decision regarding further recourse available to the petitioner. Thereafter, the legal section of the petitioner company contacted its empaneled lawyer for taking their advice in the present matter.
5. It has been submitted that the petitioner being a Public Sector Undertaking is bound to follow its internal procedure which involves movement of files in different section as well as concurrence at different levels, hence some delay has caused. Furthermore, the petitioner has good grounds for the present appeal, as such the instant Interlocution Application may be allowed after condoning the delay.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised serious objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the Tax Appeal was dismissed way back on 28.07.2017 but the instant application has been filed on 05.02.2020 i.e., after lapse of about 891 days that too without any sufficient reason. Therefore, the instant delay condonation application deserves to be rejected.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on delay condonation application and before considering the same, this Court, deems it fit and proper to refer certain legal proposition as has been propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to the approach of the Court in condoning the inordinate delay.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that generally the lis is not to be rejected on the technical ground of limitation but certainly if the filing of appeal suffers from inordinate delay, then the duty of the Court to consider the application to condone the delay before entering into the merit of the lis
9. It requires to refer herein that the Law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time, as has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 351
10. The Privy Council in General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corpn. Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, (1939-40) 67 IA 416, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lecturers, 1932, wherein, it has been said that
“A Law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on equitable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its operation, or intro
AI
The court established that a party seeking to condone a delay must demonstrate sufficient cause, and that negligence or lack of bona fides will preclude the granting of such relief, reinforcing the s....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a sufficient cause to condone delay in filing appeals, emphasizing the importance of bona fide motive, inaction, and negligence....
The principle that the law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and that the burden of proving sufficient cause for condonation of delay lies with the appellant, is crucial in ensuring timely j....
The principle that the law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a satisfactory explanation that demonstrates diligence and bona fides.
The law of limitation applies equally to all parties, including the government, and a mere bureaucratic delay is not sufficient to justify the condonation of an inordinate delay in filing an appeal.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal must be adequately justified, and negligence or lack of bona fides can bar condonation.
The law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and the burden lies on the party seeking condonation to demonstrate that the delay was due to sufficient cause, free from negligence or lack of bona....
The principle that the law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and that bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing appeals.
The principle that the law of limitation must be strictly applied, and that any request for condonation of delay must be supported by a sufficient and reasonable explanation, which was not met in thi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
