Appeals Dismissed for Delay, No Justification Found

The Court dismissed the appeals as time-barred, finding no merit in the applications for condonation of delay. The appellant's explanation failed to satisfy the test of sufficient cause, and the significant delay in filing the appeals was not justified based on the facts and circumstances presented. Consequently, the Court held that the appeals were dismissed due to the failure to adhere to the stipulated period of limitation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Condonation of delay in filing the appeals under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay
The primary issue in the appeals was whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 733 days in ITA Nos. 133 and 134 of 2019 and 739 days in ITA-135. The legal position regarding condonation of delay under Section 5 of the 1963 Act was examined. The Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation highlighted the principles for adjudicating the issue of condonation of delay. The Court emphasized that the expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a manner that serves the ends of justice. It was noted that the law of limitation is based on public policy to ensure legal remedies are availed without delay, and the courts have the discretion to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown. The Court also cited R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, emphasizing that the test of "sufficient cause" is individualistic and not objective, requiring a case-by-case analysis.

Issue 2: Application of Legal Principles
The law of limitation aims to preserve legal remedies within a fixed period and does not intend to destroy parties' rights. Section 5 of the 1963 Act empowers courts to condone delay when sufficient cause is demonstrated. The meaning of "sufficient cause" should ensure substantial justice between parties, and its determination depends on the facts of each case. The courts are advised to adopt a liberal approach for short delays and a stricter approach for inordinate delays. The appellant in this case argued that the delay was due to lack of awareness and circumstances beyond their control, but the Court found no justification to condone the significant delay in filing the appeals.

Conclusion:
After considering the arguments and legal precedents, the Court found no merit in the applications for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeals as time-barred. The Court emphasized that the appellant's explanation did not satisfy the test of sufficient cause, and the delay was not justified based on the totality of facts and circumstances. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed due to the failure to file within the stipulated period of limitation.

---