Delays in preferring appeals should be condoned in the interest of justice only where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay.

M.M. KUMAR, J. -The appellant is a company in liquidation and has invoked Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) challenging order dated 7.8.2008, passed by the learned Company Judge directing publication of the factum of admission of Company Petition No. 129 of 2004. The company petition was admitted on 26.5.2005. It is appropriate to mention that at the time of admission, learned counsel for the appellant was present before the Court and the reason for admission given in the order dated 26.5.2005 is that the appellant did not file reply despite repeated opportunities given. The order dated 26.5.2005 further reveals that the matter was to be listed for publication on 28.7.2005. However, order dated 26.5.2005 was challenged by invoking Section 483 of the Act in Company Appeal No. 13 of 2008. Alongwith the appeal applications for condoning the delay of 1050 days in filing and 72 days in re-filing the appeal were also filed. The Appellate Bench declined to condone the delay of 1050 days in filing the appeal although it has condoned the delay of 72 days in re-filing of the same. The operative part of the order dated 1.8.2008, rejecting the prayer made for condonation of delay in filing Company Appeal No. 13 of 2008 reads thus:-

“We have gone through the contents of the application and unable to agree with the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant. A perusal of the above would show that no reasons whatsoever have been given by the applicant, which could explain an inordinate delay of 1050 days in filing the Company Appeal. There can be no dispute that where sufficient cause, as mentioned in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been shown by the applicant, it must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Delays in preferring appeals should be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. The period of limitation is primarily provided and is meant to see that the parties to the litigation do not resort to deliberate tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The courts must keep a balance and for that a distinction should be made between cases in which delay is inordinate, which would cause prejudice to the rights of the other side. Where there is an inordinate delay, the Courts must take a cautious approach and do substantial justice to the parties to the litigation.

The impugned order dated 26.05.2005 is an order admitting the petition for winding up of the applicant-Company, which was passed when despite various opportunities granted to the applicant/appellant to file reply to the application, no reply was filed. The counsel for the applicant/appellant was present in Court when this order was passed. The applicant/appellant cannot thus say that they were not aware of the order passed by the Company Court. The reasons mentioned for condonation of delay (reproduced above) do not fall within the expression sufficient cause. Rather it is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 1050 days in filing the appeal. We do not have any hesitation to hold that the delay is not bonafide but a deliberate one and can be termed as a dilatory tactics. This is a case where the delay is due to gross negligence and deliberate inaction lacking bonafides. That being so we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any ground to condone the delay of 1050 days in filing the appeal and dismiss this application. As a consequence, Company Appeal No. 13 of 2008 is also dismissed.”

2. The appellant had earlier filed Company Application No. 732 of 2006 under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’), seeking direction to the respondent to furnish the detail of the account to the appellant so that the account could be settled in accordance with the detail to be provided. Th