2025 (3) TMI 1093 - HC - Indian Laws

Government's 292-day delay in dishonor of cheque appeal condoned due to plausible explanation and public interest considerations

MMTC LIMITED Versus M/s. R. Priyarelall Iron & Steel Private Limited & Anr.

Calcutta HC condoned a 292-day delay in filing appeal by government appellant in dishonor of cheque case. Court held that while government organizations ... Condonation of delay of around 292 days in preferring the instant appeal - sufficient cause for delay or not - procedural delays within a government enterprise - Dishonor of cheque - HELD THAT:- Any party to an application even if it is a government organization should strictly adhere to the rules of limitation and therefore no relaxation should automatically be granted to a party for being a government organization due to procedural delay. Having regard to the aforesaid principle, the power of the Court to condone a delay varies from case to case and strictly on the basis of sufficiency of cause. In the case at hand, the appellant/petitioner has given plausible and acceptable explanation regarding the delay in filing the special leave petition. Moreover, the dismissal of the case by the Learned Trial Judge was not on merit but only due to non- prosecution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the fate of the plea raised by the petitioner is decided beyond reasonable doubt. It cannot be abstained from providing a leeway to the petitioner with regard to delay in filing special leave petition as sufficiency of cause has to be judged in pragmatic manner so as to advance the cause of justice. In the given facts and circumstances and after due consideration of all the available materials on record, it is deemed appropriate to condone the delay of 292 days as it cannot be ignored that if appeals brought by the Government are lost for such defaults, it is the public interest which gets severely affected. Conclusion - The condonation of the 292-day delay allowed, granting the appellant leave to file the memorandum of appeal within the statutory period. Application allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment include:Whether the delay of 292 days in filing the special leave petition by the appellant should be condoned.The sufficiency of the reasons provided by the appellant for the delay in filing the petition.The implications of the procedural delays within a government enterprise on the application of the Limitation Act.Whether the dismissal of the case by the Learned Trial Judge for non-prosecution should be reconsidered.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISDelay in Filing the Special Leave PetitionRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework involves Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown. The precedents cited include cases like Pathapati Subba Reddy and Government of Maharashtra vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited, which emphasize that government entities are not entitled to special consideration for procedural delays.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court acknowledged the procedural formalities inherent in government enterprises but emphasized that these do not automatically justify delays. The Court stressed the need for a pragmatic approach, especially when the delay does not result from malafides or dilatory tactics.Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant cited reasons such as lack of notification of the show cause order, unawareness of the advocate's non-action, and procedural delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The respondent argued that the appellant failed to explain the delay adequately and that internal procedural issues should not justify the delay.Application of Law to Facts: The Court found the appellant's explanation for the delay plausible, particularly given the non-merit-based dismissal of the case by the Trial Court. The Court considered the procedural constraints of a government enterprise and the impact on public interest.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court balanced the arguments by considering the procedural challenges faced by the appellant while also emphasizing the need for government entities to adhere to limitation rules. The Court referenced the need for a liberal and justice-oriented approach in certain circumstances.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the delay should be condoned, as the reasons provided were satisfactory and the public interest could be adversely affected if the appeal was dismissed.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that while procedural delays in government entities do not automatically warrant condonation, a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach should be adopted when evaluating the sufficiency of cause for delay.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court allowed the condonation of the 292-day delay, granting the appellant leave to file the memorandum of appeal within the statutory period. The Court emphasized the need for government departments to perform their duties diligently and not rely on anticipated benefits of delay condonation.Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Court cited the judgment in Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRS. Union of India to highlight that substantive rights should not be defeated due to technical delays, and discretion must be exercised based on the sufficiency of cause shown.