- (1.) The present appeal arises from order dated 14/05/2013 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10129/2009. It is barred by delay of 385 days.
(2.) The learned Single Judge held that the order passed by the respondent cancelling the letter of acceptance dated 06/12/2007 and forfeiting the earnest money for non -compliance of obligations within prescribed time pursuant to offer by the appellant in auction of M/s.Texcon Ltd. under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act,1951 called for no interference. Cost of Rs.50,000/ - was also imposed for conduct and pleadings comprising suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.
(3.) The application to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act states that certified copy of the order dated 14/05/2013 along with the case papers was handed over to one Shri B.K. Sharma, Advocate for preparation of the appeal. Surprisingly, no date is mentioned when the certified copy was obtained and on which date the appellant contacted the said Advocate. Likewise, there is no explanation why after having handed over the papers to the Advocate for preparing the appeal, the appellant did not care and keep in touch with the Advocate and woke up only when it received a notice from the respondent with regard to which again there are no details much less any date mentioned. It is again pleaded that the appellant then came to know that Advocate concerned had expired. There is no statement on which date the appellant came to know and when the Advocate had expired. The contention that a certified copy was then applied, for preparation of the appeal is a frivolous plea because if the papers were collected from the office of the advocate, it is difficult to understand why certified copy was required afresh when it had already been obtained upon dismissal of the appeal. The plea of a bonafide delay is therefore routine, casual and has been made in mechanical manner as a ritualistic formality.;