Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause; an unsupported explanation will not save a belated challenge in consumer matters.

Condonation of delay requires a satisfactory showing of sufficient cause, and an unexplained or unsupported lapse will not justify entertaining a belated challenge. Here, the explanation for a 233-day delay in filing the special leave petition was found unsatisfactory because the petitioner knew of the impugned order shortly after delivery, took no timely steps, and produced no material to support the claimed inability to act during a visit to India. In consumer dispute matters, the need for prompt adjudication further weighed against acceptance of the delayed petition. The delay was not condoned and the special leave petition was dismissed as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 233 days in filing the special leave petition should be condoned.

Analysis: The explanation offered for the delay was found unsatisfactory. The petitioner was aware of the impugned order shortly after its delivery, yet no timely steps were taken to file the petition. The asserted inability to act during a visit to India was not supported by any material. In matters arising under the consumer dispute regime, the requirement of prompt adjudication also weighs against entertaining highly belated challenges.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the special leave petition was dismissed as barred by time.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay requires a satisfactory showing of sufficient cause, and belated challenges in consumer matters should not be entertained where the explanation for delay is unsubstantiated.

---