TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Miscellaneous Application No, 61 of 1997 under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay of 70 days. We have heard Shri Anand Chibbar and Shri L.M. Suri and have perused the record. In the application filed for condonation of delay, it has been averred that the applicant inadvertently filed a Letters Patent appeal under clause x of the Letters Patent instead of filing an appeal under section 483 of the Act and after this error came to the applicant's notice in the third week of July, the present appeal was filed on August 11, 1997. In paragraph 4 of the application, it has been averred that the Letters Patent appeal was filed on July 1, 1997, on account of the bona fide and unintentional error on the part of counsel. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the applicant and there is no presumption that the delay occasioned in the filing of the appeal, etc., is always bona fide and the court must in all cases condone the delay as a matter of course. In paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the application filed by the applicant for condonation of delay as well as the affidavit filed by Shri Sandeep K. Aggarwal, which are in pari materia and on which Shri Chibbar has placed reliance, are extracted below: "That the applicant upon receipt of certified copy of the order, inadvertently instead of filing appeal under section 483 of the Companies Act, filed an ordinary Letters Patent appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent on July 1, 1997, which was within the period of limitation period as descr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Registrar raising objections that how Letters Patent appeal was competent in a company petition. 4.That the filing of the Letters Patent appeal on July 1, 1997, against the impugned order of the Hon'ble single judge within the limitation period of 30 days is on account of bona fide error on the part of counsel which is unintentional. Counsel thereafter contacted the deponent who was away in Delhi in connection with his business. Upon his return on July 27, 1997, he contacted his advocate and gave instructions to file fresh appeal under the Companies Act. A period of about ten days was consumed thereafter in preparing the company appeal and on account of this reason, it could be filed only on August 11, 1997, thereby causing a delay of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is far from being bona fide. Therefore, we are unable to accept the plea of Shri Chibbar that the delay in the filing of the appeal should be condoned. The proposition of law laid down in Rafiq v. Munshilal, AIR 1981 SC 1400, that a party should not suffer for misdemeanour or inaction of counsel is unexceptionable but that cannot be applied in the present case to condone the delay in view of the total failure of the applicant to give the bare minimum details to prove the existence of sufficient cause. The second decision relied upon by Shri Chibbar only shows that the court should adopt a liberal approach while adjudicating applications for condonation of delay. However, there is nothing in that decision which can justify acceptance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
