TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 567
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), claiming the following substantial questions of law:- A. Whether a litigant can be made to suffer dire consequences on account of mistake of counsel? B. Whether a litigant can be condemned unheard due to fault on part of its counsel? C. Whether the issue/matter deserves to be heard and decided on merits? D. Whether substantial justice can be denied on mere technicalities? 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The appellant was the authorized dealer of the car manufacturer company-M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd. and purchased motor cars from the manufacturer on principal to principal basis and sold the same to respective buyers. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el and enquired about the status of the appeal whereby the appellant came to know that the appeal had been allowed vide order dated 6.12.2013. The appellant asked the counsel to hand over the documents. On his failure to do so, the appellant moved an application dated 14.3.2016 (Annexure A-5) before the Tribunal for the certified copy of the order dated 6.12.2013. Accordingly, the appellant filed the present appeal. Since the appeal was barred by time, an application bearing CM No. 6800-CII of 2016 has been filed for condonation of 638 days' delay in filing the instant appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. The primary question that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether there was sufficient cause fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate-Collector (L.A.) v. Katiji N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil." 6. It was further noticed by the Apex Court in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 892 as under:- ".....It is not necessary at this stage to discuss each and every judgment cited before us for the simple reason that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not lay down any standard or objective test. The test of "sufficient cause" is purely an individualistic test. It is not an objective test. Therefore, no two cases can be treated alike. The sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... justice between the parties. The existence of sufficient cause depends upon facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied in deciding such cases. 8. The Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. and R.B. Ramlingam's cases (supra) noticed that the courts should adopt liberal approach where delay is of short period whereas the proof required should be strict where the delay is inordinate. Further, it was also observed that judgments dealing with the condonation of delay may not lay down any standard or objective test but is purely an individualistic test. The court is required to examine while adjudicating the matter relating to condonation of delay on exercising judicial discretion on individual facts involved....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case file and certified copy of the order which were not supplied. Accordingly, the appellant applied for the certified copy of the order dated 6.12.2013 from the Tribunal on 14.3.2016. It was urged that the delay, if any, has occurred in the aforesaid circumstances in filing the appeal before this Court. Learned counsel further argued that the delay was unintentional and due to the circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. 10. In the present case after appreciating the plea of the appellant, the explanation furnished by it cannot be held to be plausible. It cannot be said that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Tribunal had decided the appeal on 6.12.2013. However, the appeal before this Court was required....