TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is contrary to the settled principles of law or is perverse, which is not so in the present case. There is no infirmity in the order of the trial court in exercising discretion in favour of the respondent and condoning the delay of 45 days in filing the complaint - there is no merit in the petition and the petition is dismissed. - CRL.M.C. 151/2010 - - - Dated:- 20-11-2018 - MR. SANJEEV SACHDEVA J. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners: Mr. Satish Tamta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R. Ramachandran and Ms. Monika Goel, Advs. For the Respondents: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Addl. PP for the State. Mr. Ateev Mathur with Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Mr. Amol Sharma and Ms. Jagriti Ahuja, Advs. for respondent Bank. JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. 1. Petitioner impugns order dated 11.11.2009 whereby the application of the respondent seeking condonation of delay in filing a complaint under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been allowed and the delay of 45 days in filing the complaint has been condoned. 2. This petition was earlier dismissed by this court by order dated 19.12.2011. In Special Leave Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 10.02.2009 which was accepted on 15.04.2009. The 30 day period for filing the complaint expired on 10.05.2009. The new attorney joined the office on 18.05.2009. A power of attorney authorising him was executed on 03.06.2009 at the Bombay office. The power of attorney was made available to him on 14.06.2009 by which time the courts had closed for summer vacations. The courts were closed till 24.06.2009 and the subject complaint was filed on reopening on 25.06.2009. 7. The Trial Court inter alia held that .Further it has to be kept in mind that technicalities of law cannot come into the way of substantial justice. 23. The important condition which is to govern the discretion of the court is the potentiality of the prejudice or injustice which is likely to be caused to the other side. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the complainant is a banking institution and not a private individual and there might be a delay in completing necessary formalities to engage the new Authorized Representative. Considering the fact that the complainant is a banking Institution in which public money is also involved and also the fact that a huge amount of ₹ 3 Crores is involve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... policy. The Limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they approach the court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the legislature. At the same time, the courts are empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation. 15. The expression sufficient cause used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which serves the ends of justice. No hard-and-fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications for condonation of delay but over the years this Court has advocated that a liberal approach should be adopted in such matters so that substantive rights of the parties are not defeated merely because of delay. 16. In Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [AIR 1962 SC 361] this Court while interpreting Section 5 of the Limitation Act, laid d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. (4) When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the State which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, inclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the conclusion of the lower court. *** 11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheque issued by the petitioner is of ₹ 3 crores. The cheque was dishonoured for the reason Exceeds Arrangement . Statutory notice under section 138 negotiable instruments act was issued on 15.3.2009 and delivered on 27.3.2009. In the meantime, the constituted attorney of the respondent had tendered her resignation on 10.02.2009 which was accepted on 15.04.2009. The 15 day period provided by the statutory notice expired on 11.4.2009. The 30 day period prescribed for filing the complaint expired on 10.05.2009. The new attorney joined the office on 18.05.2009. A power of attorney authorising him was executed on 03.06.2009 at the Bombay office. The power of attorney was made available on 14.06.2009 by which time the courts had closed for summer vacations. The courts were closed till 24.06.2009 and the subject complaint was filed on 25.06.2009 with a delay of 45 days. 14. The delay in this case is not inordinate. Liberal approach has to be adopted while considering an application seeking condonation of delay. Respondent had rendered a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the complaint. The delay is only of a few days. Nothing has been pointed out to show that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
