SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Sikk) 124

HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari, CJ., Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
Executive Engineer, Central Water Commission - Appellant
Versus
Maya Devi Darjee - Respondent
WA No. 04/2021
Decided On : 24-08-2021

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Sangita Pradhan, Asst. Solicitor General, for the Appellant; Mr. Zangpo Sherpa, Advocate, for the Respondent

The court ruled that failure to provide a bona fide explanation for a significant delay in filing a Writ Appeal results in a dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation.

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Delay in filing appeal - The period of limitation for filing a Writ Appeal is 30 days, with a delay of 748 days contested - Supreme Court's order in In Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation extended limitation periods due to COVID-19 - The appellant failed to provide sufficient day-to-day explanations for the delay, lacking bona fides. (Paras 2-5)

(B) Writ Appeal - Condonation of delay - The court found that the application did not satisfactorily explain the time elapsed, dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation. (Paras 6-8)

Facts of the case:
This appeal arose from an order passed on 12.07.2019 regarding a payment directive and was filed following a significant delay attributable to various circumstances, including COVID-19 restrictions.

Findings of Court:
The appellant's failure to provide a compelling explanation for the delay undermined their request for condonation, rendering the Writ Appeal inadmissible.

Issues: The principal issue was whether the appellant provided adequate justification for the significant delay in filing the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the absence of a bona fide explanation for the delay warranted dismissal of the appeal as it failed to meet the necessary legal thresholds for condonation of delay.

Result: Writ Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.

Table of Content
1. writ appeal dismissed for limitation. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

J.K. Maheshwari; CJ.:--

Arising out of Order dated 12.07.2019 passed in WP (C) No.09/2019 by the learned Single Judge, this Appeal has been filed on 30.07.2021 by a delay of 748 days. It is not in dispute that the period of limitation to file the Writ Appeal is 30 days and there is no in dispute that the period of delay is 748 days.

It is a known fact that from 15.03.2020 till 15.03.2021, the delay as occurred in filing of the Writ Appeal, the same has been deem to be condoned as per the Order of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of In Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation in Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3/2020 decided on 27.04.2021, in which the Apex Court held as thus:

“6. ………We, therefore, restore the order dated 23rd March, 2020 and in continuation of the order dated 8th March, 2021 direct that the period(s) of limitation, as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended till further orders.

7. It is further clarified that the period from 14th March, 2021 till further orders shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Action, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act , 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, out limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.”

However, from the date of the judgment, on expiry of 30 days period of limitation, i.e. August, 2019, the delay is required to be explained till 15.03.2020. Thereafter, in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order, it is not required to be explained.

We have perused the application seeking condonation filed by the appellant. On perusal it indicates that in furtherance to the Order passed by learned Single Judge and the Award of the Tribunal dated 30.06.2016, payment of 7,40,018/- was made on 21.08.2020. It is said that on receiving the notice for non-compliance of the Order of payment of the Award as directed by the learned Single Judge, the contempt has been preferred claiming exaggerated amount of interest; therefore, this Writ Appeal has been preferred now belatedly after seeking approval from the Law Department.

In our considered opinion, without giving day to day explanation from August, 2019 till 15.03.2020 i.e. the date of Covid pandemic situation started, sufficient ground to condone the delay has not been made. If demand of interest is contrary to the direction of the Court, the appellant may satisfy the learned Single Judge in the contempt proceeding.

In view of the above, in our considered opinion, the appellant has miserably failed to explain the delay with bona fides to seek condonation.

In view of the above, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top