Sufficient cause for condonation of delay must be bona fide and supported by evidence, or the appeal may be dismissed.

Condonation of a 316-day delay in filing an appeal against a delisting order was refused because the appellant failed to show sufficient cause. The explanations that the order had not been served, that documents were obtained later, and that internal difficulties delayed engagement of counsel were found vague, unsupported by documentary proof, and treated as an afterthought. The governing principle applied was that delay can be condoned only on a bona fide and legally adequate explanation; it is not granted as a matter of right. The condonation application was rejected and the appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of an inordinate delay of 316 days in filing the appeal against the delisting order.

Analysis: The appeal against delisting was required to be filed within the prescribed statutory period, but the appellant allowed the matter to remain unattended for a long time. The explanation that the order was not served, that documents were obtained later, and that there were internal difficulties in engaging counsel and pursuing correspondence was found unsupported by documentary proof and treated as vague and afterthought. The governing principle is that sufficient cause must disclose legal and adequate reasons, and condonation is not to be granted as a matter of right in the absence of bona fide explanation.

Conclusion: No sufficient cause was made out for condoning the delay. The application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.

---