TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1939
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onation of 65 days delay in filing the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the delay has been caused on account of bona-fide reasons and not on account of inaction or carelessness. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appellant is a corporate body with a legal department and any decision to file the appeal has to go through the legal department as well as by the higher management. The appellant had preferred to take an opinion from "some counsels" and also gave some self-analysis of the case. Thereafter, the facts were placed before the higher management of the company and thus, this process took some time and resulted in delay, which is contended to be unintentional. 3. Learned co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r to avoid any injustice to the appellant. 7. No doubt, The Supreme Court of India has taken a consistent view that while deciding an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courts must take a liberal view so as to advance substantial justice. However, the Supreme Court has also observed that a liberal approach must be taken, provided there is no gross negligence, deliberate inaction or lack of bonafides imputable to the parties seeking condonation of delay. 8. We have carefully examined the application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay. A careful reading of the application would show that the application is highly casual in nature, it lacks material particulars and does not disclose sufficient cause f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may please be kind enough to condone delay of 65 days in filing the accompanying appeal keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances as also in the interest of justice. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also pass in favour of the appellants and against the respondent." 10. In the case of Office of the Chief Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Limited and Anr., reported at AIR 2012 SC 1506, the Supreme Court of India has analysed the entire law on the subject. It would be relevant to reproduce paras 11 to 13, which is reproduced below: "11) We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the "better affidavit"....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt by taking appropriate steps. 12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay." 11. In the case of Office of the Chief Postmaster General & Ors. (Supra), the Supreme Court was considering an application seeking condonation of delay filed by a Government Department. The present case pertains to a Private Limited Company which admittedly has a legal department. The first question which arises for our consideration is whether the application discloses sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. 12. While considering the application seeking condonation of delay, the period of delay is not the criteria. A short delay may not be condoned in the absence of an acceptable explanation while a large delay may be condoned if the expla....