9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ackdrop:- 2. The impugned proceeding finds its genesis from a complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I Act preferred by the appellant alleging inter alia that the complainant, M/s MMTC Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the company" and/or "the complainant company"), is a Government of India Enterprise having its Corporate Office at Core-1, "Scope Complex", 7. Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003 and regional office at 8, India Exchange Place, NIC Building,4th Floor, Kolkata - 700 001 including various branches throughout the length and breadth in India. The accused no.1 is a company [herein after referred to as the "said company" and/or "accused company"] within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 having its office(s) at the above- mentioned address(es). The accused no. 2 is a Director of the accused company. The accused no. 2 is/was in charge of and/or responsible to the said accused company for its day to day business and he also enjoys/enjoyed the overall control over the regular affairs of the said company during all the material time and transacted with the complainant company representing the accused company. 3. The appellant company had a long standing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e any such payment. It is further alleged that on various lame pretexts, the accused persons were deliberately and dishonestly evading making of any such payment and as a result in the mean time the aforesaid Six Cheques, all dated 22.07.2011 which were lying with the complainant company automatically reached the verge of expiry but the accused persons did not replace those any more. 4. In the said premises, after giving sufficient opportunity to the accused persons for making payments lastly vide letter dated 14 January, 2012 asking them to at least replace the said cheques, in vain, the appellant/company having no other alternative placed, out of the aforesaid fresh Six Cheques, the Four account payee cheques respectively bearing no. 002339 for Rs. 10,00,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Crores Only), no, 002340 for Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Only), no. 002342 for Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only), and no. 002344 for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) all dated 22.07.2011 drawn on the HDFC Bank, 2/6, Sarat Bose Road, Central Plaza, Kolkata - 700 020 backed by the abovementioned existing legal debt and/or liability of Rs. 17,90,43,619.04 of the accused persons for cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice. It is further stated that even after due receipt of the demand notice, the accused company No.1 neither complied with the said notice nor did they pay the cheque amount nor even the liability amount being Rs. 17,90,43,619.04 or any amount at all to the complainant company even till date and thereby has invited the penal mischief of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Argument:- 8. Ld. Sr. Counsel, Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the appellant/petitioner, being a government enterprise, is governed by a myriad of procedural formalities intrinsic to its functioning. Due to certain procedural lacunae and administrative delays, the approval, as sought for by the authorized representative on 21.11.2022, was regrettably granted only on 05.07.2023 pertaining to the appointment of new advocate/solicitor. In the interregnum, the authorized representative of the appellant/petitioner was completely unaware of the stage and/or day-to-day proceedings in the complaint case before the Learned Trial Court, including the passing of the impugned order dated 19.01.2023. 9. Mr. Ganguly has further submitted that the delay has been inadv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following up with the matter since November' 2020. 13. Mr. Edulji has also submitted that it is of paramount importance to note that the petitioner has made evasive averments with regard to appointment of individuals and their superannuation which is completely their internal matter and has no bearing with regard to the adjudication of the present application for condonation of delay. The petitioner has intentionally and deliberately inserted the said facts to substantiate the delay. 14. In this regard, Ld. Sr. Counsel has suggested that the internal arrangement of the petitioner company cannot be a ground for courts of law to wait for indefinite period of time. While going through the paragraphs of the application, it clearly does not demonstrate any cogent and substantial reason to condone the delay as has been caused while denying averments made therein. It is stated that only during the lockdowns as announced by the Government of India, the courts were closed for filing but the petitioner had enough opportunity to file the application through online module as allowed by the Hon'ble Court during this said period. The application should have been filed through available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evident that: (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the petitioner is decided beyond reasonable doubt. 25. It would also be pertinent to mention that the petitioner being a government enterprise has certain procedural formalities and do not share the same characteristic traits of a private individual. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court time again reiterated the settled proposition of law that if the explanation does not smack of malafides or is not put forth as a part of a dilatory tactics then the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. 26. At this juncture, I would like to discuss a celebrated judgment regarding the impersonal nature of functioning of a government organization held in the case of Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRS. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1278. 27. The highlights of the above referred case as enumerated by the Hon'ble Apex Court are to the effect that : - "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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the courts below". If any authority is required, we can profitably refer to the decision in Manjunath Anandappa v. Tammanasa [Manjunath Anandappa v. Tammanasa, (2003) 10 SCC 390], which in turn relied on the decision in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha [Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha, (1980) 2 SCC 593 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 197] where it has been held that : "an appellate power interferes not when the order appealed is not right but only when it is clearly wrong". ( emphasis in original ) 34. The order under challenge in this appeal is dated 21-12- 2011 [Union of India v. Sheo Raj, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5511] . It was rendered at a point of time when the decisions in Katiji [Collector (LA) v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107], Ramegowda [G. Ramegowda v. LAO, (1988) 2 SCC 142], Chandra Mani [State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, (1996) 3 SCC 132], K.V. Ayisumma [Tehsildar (LA) v. K.V. Ayisumma, (1996) 10 SCC 634] and Lipok AO [State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, (2005) 3 SCC 752 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 906] were holding the field. It is not that the said decisions do not hold the field now, ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime to distinguish the two decisions on which Mr Sharma heavily relied on. 38. Balwant Singh [Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 685 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 537] arose out of a landlord-tenant dispute. Our thought process need not be guided by the law laid down on what would constitute "sufficient cause" in a dispute between private parties to a case where the Central Government is a party. 39. According to Mr Sharma, University of Delhi [University of Delhi v. Union of India, (2020) 13 SCC 745] is a decision by a larger Bench and, therefore, binding on us. This Court, while deciding University of Delhi [University of Delhi v. Union of India, (2020) 13 SCC 745], was seized of a situation where even if the delay were to be condoned, it would cause grave prejudice to the respondent Delhi Metro Rail Corporation at the instance of the casual approach of the appellant University. This Court, on the argument of non-availability of the Vice Chancellor for granting approval to file the appeal, and other reasons put forth in the matter, could not conclude that there was fulfilment of sufficient cause for condonation of delay; hence, the refusal to condone the delay. The decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an order of a lower court and thereby secure unholy gains, can hardly be ignored. Impediments in the working of the grand scheme of governmental functions have to be removed by taking a pragmatic view on balancing of the competing interests. Conclusion : 42. For the foregoing reasons and the special circumstances obtaining here that the impugned order [Union of India v. Sheo Raj, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5511] reasonably condones the delay caused in presenting the appeal by the first respondent before the High Court, the present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of." 28. In view of the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I cannot abstain from providing a leeway to the petitioner with regard to delay in filing special leave petition as sufficiency of cause has to be judged in pragmatic manner so as to advance the cause of justice. In the given facts and circumstances and after due consideration of all the available materials on record, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 292 days as it cannot be ignored that if appeals brought by the Government are lost for such defaults, in my opinion, it is the public inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
