2024 (6) TMI 1523 - HC - IBC

Delay condonation plea for 181-day late intra-court appeal rejected for vague explanation under Section 5 Limitation Act

HC dismissed the application seeking condonation of 181 days' delay in filing an intra-court appeal against a writ order. The appellant contended that ... Condonation of 181 days delay in filing an intra-court appeal against the writ order - Sufficient reasons for delay or not - HELD THAT:- The well settled legal proposition that the Court is required to adopt liberal and justice oriented approach in the matter of condonation of appeal, does not dispense with the requirement to furnish at least a plausible explanation for condonation of delay. The Court cannot condone the delay in the absence of any proper explanation for the delay. It is evident that explanation furnished for condonation of delay is vague. In fact, no cogent explanation has been offered for filing the appeal on 24.11.2023 except for stating that complex problems of interplay between public duty of state and insolvency law arise for consideration. The application for condonation of delay does not contain any averment that it took six months for the counsel to draft the Memo of Appeal, which runs into six pages. Thus, no sufficient cause for condonation of delay is made out - the application fails and is hereby dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether sufficient cause was shown for condonation of 181 days' delay in filing an intra-court appeal against the writ order. 1.2 Scope and limits of the Court's 'liberal and justice oriented approach' in applications for condonation of delay. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 2.1 Condonation of 181 days' delay in filing the intra-court appeal Legal framework (as discussed) 2.1.1 The Court noted the 'well settled legal proposition' that in matters of condonation of delay, a liberal and justice oriented approach is to be adopted, with reference to the principle relied upon from the decision in 'Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji and others'. Interpretation and reasoning 2.1.2 The Court held that a liberal and justice oriented approach does not dispense with the requirement of furnishing at least a 'plausible explanation' and 'proper explanation' for the delay. 2.1.3 The Court examined the affidavit in support of the delay condonation application, particularly paras 3 and 4, where the explanation was: (i) the Court vacation period; and (ii) 'complex issues' involved, with time consumed in research and preparation of the appeal due to the impugned order running into 28 pages and involving complex questions on the interplay between public duty of the State and insolvency law. 2.1.4 The Court recorded that, despite being given three opportunities to file an additional affidavit to better explain the delay, counsel for the appellant refused and insisted on a decision based solely on the existing averments. 2.1.5 On perusal of the affidavit, the Court found the explanation to be 'vague' and lacking any 'cogent explanation' for filing the appeal only on 24.11.2023; it was specifically noted that there was no averment that it took six months to draft the six-page memorandum of appeal. Conclusions 2.1.6 The Court concluded that, in the facts and circumstances, no 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay was made out. 2.1.7 The application for condonation of delay was dismissed and, consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.