TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 724
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt No.1 allowing IA No.4434 of 2023. The Appellant's case in Delay Condonation Application is that the arguments were heard on IA No. 4434 of2023 on 22.11.2023 but no order was pronounced in the open Court. The Appellant was regularly following the Counsel representing the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority to check if the order is pronounced. On 25.01.2024, the Liquidator shared a copy of the order dated 22.11.2023 with the Applicant/ Appellant whereby the Adjudicating Authority has allowed the application. Appellant/ Applicant enquired from the counsel representing the Appellant who insisted that the order has not been pronounced and shared a screenshots of the website indicating that the order was not uploaded as late as on 20.02.2024. On 22.02.2024, Counsel for the Applicant received the certified copy of the order and thereafter the appeal has been filed on 02.03.2024. Counsel for the Appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sanjay Pandurang Kalate vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited and Ors.- 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1663" to submit that the order is not pronounced in the court, limitation shall not commence from the date which was fixed for hearing of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed following:- "19. In the present case, the cause list for 17 May 2023 placed on record by the appellant Indicates that the case was listed for admission and not for pronouncement. Further, on a specific query of the Court, it is not in dispute between counsel for the appellant and the respondent, that no substantive order was passed on 17 May 2023 by the NCLT. In these circumstances, limitation would not begin to run on 17 May 2023 which was the date on which hearings concluded. As no order was passed before 30 May 2023, there was no occasion for the appellant to lodge an application for a certified copy on 17 May 2023. Time for filing an appeal would commence only when the order appealed from was uploaded since prior to that date no order was pronounced. 20.In V Nagarajan (supra), there was an unequivocal pronouncement of the order before the upload of the order and thus, the decision is not applicable to the facts of the case, in the facts of the present case, the date of upload of the order is the same as the date of pronouncement. To avoid situations such as these, in cases where the matter has been heard on a particular....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same." 9.There cannot be any dispute to the proposition laid down in the above case that law of limitation has to be applied and the period of limitation cannot be extended on equitable grounds. In the facts of the above case, delay of 467 days came to be condoned by the Trial Court which order was set aside by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so....." (emphasis supplied)." 11.The law as noticed above indicate that the expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. Counsel for the Respondent has relied on paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment which are as follows:- "30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. 31.Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long ....