TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 245
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me issue in respect of other parties, are pending before this Court as on today and the interim orders were also passed on 13.12.2012 in tune with the interim order passed by Honble the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010 dated 13.01.2012. It is also stated in the affidavit and petition filed by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise dated 07.02.2014 that the applicants have engaged the services of a reputed counsel for defending, pursuing and appearing in the matter and they were under a bona fide impression that the learned counsel was pursuing the matter. Learned counsel orally informed the applicants that the writ petition was not decided and only after receiving caveat from the respondent on 26.08.2011, the disposal of the writ petition came to the knowledge of the applicants. The applicants requested the counsel on 29.08.2011 for taking necessary action, but even thereafter the learned counsel failed to inform the action taken, hence the applicants sought the services of other counsel and applied for certified copy on 19.12.2013, which was issued on 16.01.2014. Thereafter the applicants took steps for preparing the appeal and sent it for vetting and filing b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed by the learned Single Judge. Once the order, which was followed, has not attained finality and a batch of 107 appeals are already entertained by this Court and are pending as on date, the applicants are justified in filing the appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge and the delay, though is abnormal, is properly explained by stating that the learned counsel engaged, or his office, never informed the fact about the final order passed in the writ petition and after receiving notice on caveat, the applicants immediately approached the counsel for applying for the certified copy which was also not applied and thereafter through another counsel certified copy was applied and after receiving the same, appeal papers were made ready and the same was filed. The said explanation shows sufficient cause to condone the delay. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the applicants, by condoning the delay, the right of the respondent will not be affected as the order in its favour was passed by following an earlier order, which is in appeal as on date. 8. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent reiterate the position of law that bona fide and due dil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers of agents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes with it. 17. Therefore, in assessing what, in a particular case, constitutes 'sufficient cause' for purposes of Section 5, it might, perhaps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude from the considerations that go into the judicial verdict, these factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Government. Governmental decisions are proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process of their making. A certain amount of latitude is, therefore, not impermissible. It is rightly said that those who bear responsibility of Government must have 'a little play at the joints'. Due recognition of these limitations on Governmental function - of course, within reasonable limits - is necessary if the judicial approach is not to be rendered unrealistic. It would, perhaps, be unfair and unrealistic to put Government and private parties on the same footing in all respects in such matters. Implicit in the very nature of Government....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 5 was enacted in order to enable the Court to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression 'sufficient cause' is adequately elastic to enable the Court to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice - that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. This Court reiterated that the expression 'every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense, pragmatic manner. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant d....