Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GR.BOMBAY
Delay Application No.11 of 2019
M/s.Patidam Jewellery
Pvt. Ltd. ..Applicant
V/s.
The Development Commissioner
SEEPZSEZ & anr. ..Respondents
Coram : H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
SHRI V.G. BISHT
Dated : 14th March,2019
(C.R.No.19)
Advocate Mr.Deepen Dixit for applicant.
Advocate Mr.M.S. Bharadwaj for respondents.
O R A L O R D E R
Read application. Read affidavit in reply (Exh.3).
2 It appears that the applicant has filed appeal challenging the
order dated 27th November,2018 passed by the Estate Manager SEEPZ
SEZ Authority, Mumbai (respondent no.2) under SubSection (1) and (2
A) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act,1971.
The said order was received by the applicant on or about 6th
December,2018 and the time to file the appeal expired on 18th
December,2018. According to the applicant, there is delay of 22 days in
-- 1 of 5 --
2
filing the appeal.
3 After passing of the said order, the applicant approached the
advocate and advocate advised him to bring all the relevant documents
including the final Lease Agreement which was not readily available with
him. However, he got the said document on or before 14th December,2018.
On the same day, photocopies of all the relevant documents were couriered
to the advocate, however, the documents were lost in transit and this fact
came in the light on 17th December,2018.
4 Thereafter, the draft of the appeal was delivered to him after
submitting the necessary documents on 22nd December,2018 which was
followed by winter vacations. Therefore, delay in filing the appeal.
5 The respondents on the other hand opposed the application by
contending that no reasonable or plausible explanation is given to condone
the delay. Since sufficient cause is not explained, the application is liable
to be rejected, concluded respondents.
6 Mr.Deepen Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted
that the delay in preferring the appeal was not intentional and in view of
the circumstances explained in the application and the fact that the
applicant has got a good case on merits, the delay is liable to be condoned.
Learned counsel placed reliance in State (NCT of Delhi) V/s. Ahmed
Jaan, arising out of SLP (Cri.)No.131 of 2006, decided on 12th
-- 2 of 5 --
3
August,2008.
7 Mr.M. S. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the respondents, on
the other hand, opposed the contentions by contending that it is for the
applicant to satisfy to the court that he had sufficient cause for not
preferring the appeal or making the application within the statutory period
prescribed by law and since no sufficient cause is forthcoming, the
application is liable to be rejected.
8 In State (NCT of Delhi) (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that the proof by sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise
of the extraordinary discretion vested in the court. What counts is not the
length of the delay but the sufficiency of the cause and shortness of the
delay is one of the circumstances to be taken into account in using the
discretion.
9 In the instant case, the applicant has very elaborately
discussed the circumstances leading to the delay in filing the appeal since
the documents were lost in transit and when the same were procured again
and submitted to his advocate, the draft came to be approved on 24th
December,2018. Thereafter, because of Winter Vacation the counsel was
not available and it is only after opening of the court the appeal came to be
filed.
-- 3 of 5 --
4
10 In this obtaining situation, in my considered opinion, the
applicant has given sufficient reasons which caused the delay. Even
otherwise the applicant could not have gained by deliberately delaying
filing of the appeal inasmuch as impugned order was passed against him.
11 In the above situation and in order to do substantial justice
between the parties, it is necessary that the delay of 22 days, for the
reasons indicated by the applicant in the application condoned.
12 In view of above, I pass the following order:
O R D E R
Delay Application No.11 of 2019 is allowed.
The delay of 22 days in filing the Misc.Appeal stands
condoned.
Appeal be registered in accordance with law.
14/03/2019 (V. G. BISHT)
Principal Judge,
Gr.Bombay.
Dictated on : 14/03/2019
Transcribed on : 14/03/2019
Signed by HHJ on : 14/03/2019
-- 4 of 5 --
5
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographer: Mrs.Aruna S. Jayade
Upload date and time: 14/03/2019 (5.00 p.m.)
Name of the Judge H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Shri V.G. BISHT(C.R.No.19)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 14th March,2019
Order signed by P.O. on 14th March,2019
Order uploaded on 14th March,2019
-- 5 of 5 --