CHITRANJAN BAID Vs. RELIANCE FINANCIAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interim Application (Lodging) No.9793 of 2023 and Interim Application (Lodging) No.9790 of 2023 are delay condonation applications.

(2.) The obligation is on the party applying for condonation of delay to show sufficient cause. Sufficient cause is the cause for which applicant could not be blamed for his or her absence. The meaning of the word sufficient is adequate or enough, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Sufficient cause would also mean that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bonafide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". The onus is on applicant to satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The Court has to examine whether the mistake is bonafide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. It is settled law that no Court could be justified in condoning the delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by the Court and if there is no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the Court on time condoning the delay without any justification, it amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.

(3.) In Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) represented by Executive Engineer V/s. M/s. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.1, the Apex Court has held that for the object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) for appeals filed under Sec. 37 of the Act, the delay is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bonafide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion of the Court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party's inaction, negligence or laches. Paragraphs 56 to 63 of the said judgment read as under :