Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause; negligence and unexplained default will not justify admission of belated filings.

Condonation of delay requires a credible showing of sufficient cause for the entire period of default; internal file movement, transfer of the regional manager, and the need to obtain ministerial permission did not satisfactorily explain the delay after expiry of limitation. The Tribunal treated the record as showing inattention and negligence rather than unavoidable cause, and held that public sector status did not justify special indulgence. On that basis, the delay was not condoned and the belated appeals were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the original and supplementary appeals should be condoned on the ground of sufficient cause.

Analysis: The applications explained the delay by reference to internal file movement, transfer of the regional manager, and the need to obtain permission from the Ministry of Communications. The relevant limitation period had already expired when the appeals were filed. The Tribunal held that sufficient cause must be shown for the delay and that the explanation offered did not satisfactorily account for the period of default. The Tribunal also held that the fact that the appellant was a public sector undertaking did not entitle it to special indulgence, and that the material showed inattention and negligence rather than unavoidable cause.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the applications were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeals did not survive because the Tribunal refused to extend limitation and declined to admit the belated filings.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay requires a credible showing of sufficient cause, and negligence, inaction, or an unexplained delay after expiry of limitation will not justify exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant.

---