TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Manikumar And V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, JJ. For Appellant/petitioner : Mr.K.Jayachandran JUDGMENT ( Order of the Court was delivered by S. Manikumar, J ) Final order has been passed on 10.05.2002. Instant CMA Sr No.3611 of 2007, has been filed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai dated 30.05.2002 in Appeal No.E/721/2001 with a delay of 1527 days. 2. Explaining the enormous delay, at paragraph No.6, the Director of the petitioner-company has averred as follows: 6. I respectfully submit that due to closure of the mill, entire staff left the company and the order which could have been served on the security staff was not brought to the notice of the persons in charge like ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut are obliged to remove injustice. 21.2. (ii) The terms sufficient cause should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. 21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. 21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. 21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. 21.6. (vi) It is to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are to be carefully scrutinised and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. 21.13. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 4. Subsequently, after considering the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment of this Court in Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Vs. Appellate Authority, reported in (1990) 1 LLN 457 and decision of the Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649, in H.Dohil Constructions Company Private Limted V. Nahar Exports Limited and Another, reported in 2015(1) Supreme Court cases 680, Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. 24. When we apply those principles to the case on hand, it has to be stated that the failure of the Respondents in not showing due diligence in filing of the appeals and the enormous time taken in the refiling can only be construed, in the absence of any valid explanation, as gross negligence and lacks in bonafides as displayed on the part of the Respondents. Further, when the Respondents have not come forward with proper details as regards the date when the papers were returned for refiling, the non-furnishing of satisfactory reasons for not refiling of papers in time and the failure to pay the Court fee at the time of the filing of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by filing the appeals, they should have shown utmost diligence and come forward with justifiable reasons when an enormous delay of five years was involved in getting its appeals registered. 5. It is also useful to extract paragraph Nos.14 to 17 of the judgment in Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank's case. 14. We are unable to agree with the reasoning of the learned Judge that no litigant ordinarily stands to benefit by instituting a proceeding beyond time. It is common knowledge that by delaying a matter, evidence relating to the matter in dispute may disappear and very often the party concerned may think that preserving the relevant records would be unnecessary in view of the fact that there was no further proceeding. If a litigant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
