Decided on October 06,2005



Arunabha Barua, J. - (1.) LEARNED Advocate for the appellant Mr. T.T. Haider is present. Learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 Mr. D. Basu Roy is also present.
(2.) THE hearing arose out of an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the stay application. The appellant has sought to save the bar of limitation in trying to show "sufficient cause" for the admitted delay in filing the appeal. As for the "sufficient cause", the learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that in respect of the impugned order, dated 17th September, 2004, which is under challenge in this appeal, reasonable time was spent in the course of proceedings initiated by the appellant both in the High Court, Calcutta, as well as the Supreme Court where the impugned order dated 17th September, 2004 passed by the Tribunal below was challenged. He has further submitted that though the appellant had failed in both counts in the High Court and the Supreme Court, the delay on the part of the appellant was not deliberate and the proceedings were done in good faith. It is his further contention that on 11th July, 2005, the special leave petition against the order of the Hon'ble High Court was dismissed; on 8th August, 2005 certified copy of the said order of the Supreme Court dated 11th July, 2005 was obtained; on 9th August, 2005 preparation was made for filing the appeal and on 10th August, 2005 the clerk -in -charge for preparation of paper book, namely, one Ganapati Dalapadi, took time for preparation of paper book but in the meantime his father died and he could not work for twenty days due to the death of his father and the appeal was eventually filed on 9th September, 2005. In the circumstances, he submits that the appeal can be entertained after the expiry of the statutory limit of forty -five days if sufficient cause is shown and according to him, the aforesaid facts and circumstances, adequately explain the delay in filing the appeal, which constitute the sufficient reasons for which delay should be condoned and appeal admitted and interim stay as prayed for should be granted so that his dues to the Indian Overseas Bank can be paid off immediately.
(3.) THE learned Advocate for the respondent -Bank has submitted in tune with the written objection filed by the respondent -Bank that the appellant has failed to explain each day's delay for filing the appeal before this Appellate Tribunal. He has further submitted that the applicant resorted to wrong procedure before the Hon'ble High Court and the Supreme Court and that cannot be treated as sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. He has further submitted that ignorance of law for initiating wrong proceedings cannot be treated as sufficient grounds, and therefore delay should not be condoned and the appeal must not be admitted and be dismissed together with the stay application.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.