Case Law Details
CIT Vs M/s T.V. Sundaram Ayangar & Sons (Uttarakhand High Court)
It is stated that since there was no authorized translator in the Department as well as in the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, it took some time to translate the documents. Lastly, it is stated that due to above mentioned reasons, delay has occurred in filing the present revision, which may kindly be condoned and the revision be treated to have been filed within time.
In Brijesh Kumar and others vs State of Haryana and others, (2014) 11 SCC 351, Hon’ble Apex Court relying upon the previous judgment of Esha Bhattacharjee (supra) has laid down the various principles in paragraph 10 of said judgment. The same reads as under:
“10. The Courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. However, the court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for want of bona fides of an inaction or negligence would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the court for condoning the delay. This Court has time and again held that when mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay is not property, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds along.”
Since the delay in filing the revision is inordinate and has not been explained sufficiently in the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application and not even a single condition laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in judgments (supra) has been satisfied, the delay condonation application (CLMA no. 1211 of 2017) is liable to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
