TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (5) TMI 479
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Nos. 2 and 3 were causing harassment to the plaintiff and were making false reports in regard to the product of the plaintiff. In furtherance to these acts, a notice was issued by defendant No. 4 on 16-11-1989 under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. To this show cause, reply was submitted by the plaintiff. The goods of the plaintiff were confiscated and the penalty was levied upon the plaintiff by the defendants vide order dated 25/30-8-1991. Against this order, an appeal was preferred. The plaintiff ultimately filed a writ petition and the order of confiscation as well as imposition of penalty upon the plaintiff was quashed. The sum of ₹ 5 lakhs which was deposited in the appeal before the authorities was liable to be refunded and was refunded on 5-5-1998. The plaintiff was forced to suffer on account of illegal and unauthorized acts of the defendants and to the extent that it served a notice upon the defendants on 21-08-1998 claiming the interest. Having failed to receive any money, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of the said amount. The suit was contested by the defendants and various actions taken by the authorities, as afore-referred, were justif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lication under Section 151 of the CPC for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal. Though it is not clear, but it appears that the appeal was re-filed after more than an year. CM 184/03 is still another application under Section 151 of the CPC praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the delay as per the applicant is of 293 days. 4. Both these applications have been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in appeal. It is contended on its behalf that no cause much less a sufficient or a reasonable cause has been shown for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is also argued that the applications are mis-conceived and the two applications for condonation of delay have been filed primarily to mislead the court inasmuch as even the date of the judgment has been wrongly mentioned as 21st March, 2002 while it is dated 21-3-2001. It is stated that in fact, the delay in filing the appeal is more than two years and not even one line of plausible explanation has been stated in these applications so as to invoke the discretion of this court entitling the applicants for condonation of delay. 5. Learned counsel appearing f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....em. First of all, the opinion of lawyer for filing appeal has to be their, thereafter the matter is taken up with various offices/Ministries as Ministry of Law, etc. 4. That in passing through the unavoidable channel, the preparation and filing of the accompanying RFA could be delayed. The said delay was beyond the control of any particular individual (Deponent)." 7. The above are the reasons stated for condoning the delay. No reference of any office or date has been given in the application. The application lacks basic details which would be essential for the court to consider a request for condonation of delay. It is true that UOI unlike a normal litigant may not be called upon to explain each day's delay by giving a reasonable or plausible explanation but the entire delay has to be explained at least in a composite manner so as to enable the court to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant, if the application satisfies the ingredients enunciated by different judicial pronouncements. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants while heavily relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and Others v. Kameshwar Prasad ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal. ILR 13 Mad 269, approved. It is however, necessary to emphasis that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court by S.5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration;..." Reference can also be made to a judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sanjeev Babbar and Others v. M/s. Dev Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vol. CXVIlI-(1998-l) The Punjab Law Reporter 814 wherein the court held as under :- "5. As is clear from the above facts that the present petitioner has been most negligent and irresponsible in pursuing his remedy. The revision petition as originally filed was barred by time as is clear from the afore-stated dates. In fact no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 3rd March, 1982. Except giving these dates, the application gives no explanation, much less a sufficient cause for justifying the prayer for condonation of delay. The vague averments in the application cannot be the basis for denying a substantial benefit in law to the respondent. The right of the other party cannot be taken away on such averments, which would constitute no sufficient cause on the true and correct interpretation of the sufficient cause contemplated under the provisions of the Limitation Act. We find no merit in this application and would decline to condone the delay." 9. Even in the case of UOI v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. - 1988 (38) Excise Law Times 739 (S.C.), the Supreme Court took the view that the Government being impersonal takes longer time in filing the Appeals/Petitions than the private bodies or the individuals. Even giving that latitude, there must be some way or attempt to explain the cause for such delay and as there was no whisper to explain what legal problems occurred in filing the special leave petition, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Still in another case reported as Collector of C.Ex., Madras v. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....othing but a negligent attitude and they are taking it to be for granted that the UOI is entitled to claim condonation of delay de hors its averments in the application. For these reasons, we find no merit in these applications and decline to condone the delay and dismiss both these applications. 11. It may be noticed that the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, as a last attempt, intended to persuade the court that it should condone the delay and hear the appeal on merits as a substantial question of law as to the jurisdiction of the court to try and decide the suit in question, arises in the appeal. We have clearly stated that there is no occasion for this court to condone the delay of 293 days in filing the appeal and an year in refiling the appeal. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is that the appeal initially was not filed properly or in accordance with law, thus, it would be no filing as per the rules of the High Court. According to him, there is a delay of more than two years in filing the appeal, particularly in view of the objections raised by the Registry and the fact that the certified copy of the decree was not available ....