Condonation of delay requires a reasonable explanation; vague reasons and lack of due diligence defeated a 782-day delay request.

Delay of 782 days in filing an appeal was held not to be condonable because the explanations offered were vague and unsupported by cogent evidence. The stated reasons, including health issues of a director, resignation of personnel, and operational disruption, were treated as showing a lack of due diligence and negligence. Although condonation is considered on a liberal and pragmatic basis, the applicant must still give a reasonable and sufficient explanation, and substantial delay also requires attention to prejudice and the applicant's conduct. The condonation application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 782 days in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The delay was found to be inordinate and unsupported by cogent evidence. The explanations regarding the director's health, resignation of personnel, and operational disruptions were held to be vague and indicative of lack of due diligence and negligence. The legal standard applied was that, although condonation requires a liberal and pragmatic approach, the applicant must still furnish a reasonable and sufficient explanation, and in cases of substantial delay the prejudice to the other side and the conduct of the applicant assume significance.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application for condonation of delay was dismissed.

---