A.L. Mehta vs Niit Limited
2010 Latest Caselaw 3855 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CM No.3635/2010 in FAO(OS) No.139/2010

A.L. MEHTA                              .....Appellant through
                                        Appellant in person

                  versus

NIIT LIMITED                            .....Respondent through
                                        Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv.
                                        with Mr. Rajat Navet &
                                        Mr. Nikhil Bhalla, Advs.

%                                Date of Hearing: August 11, 2010

                                 Date of Decision: August 18, 2010

      CORAM:
*     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
      1. Whether reporters of local papers may be
         allowed to see the Judgment?                    No
      2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?          No
      3. Whether the Judgment should be reported
         in the Digest?                                  No

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. By this application, the Appellant prays for the

condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the Appeal. The

contents of the application read thus:-

1. That the petitioner has filed appeal against Order dated 13.10.2009, as the order dated 13.10.2009 is contrary to law & which emanates out of an illegal & void agreement, unenforceable in law.

2. That the petitioner had applied for a copy of the aforesaid order on 14.10.2009 on an urgent basis, which could be made ready only on 29.10.2009, as the

file during the interim period was in the Court. That there has been a delay of 39 days in filing the appeal, for certain unavoidable reasons, including the time taken by the advocate to draft the petition and the interim vacation in the Court.

Prayer In the above circumstances, it is prayed that the delay of 39 days may please be condoned.

2. As is to be expected, the Respondent has strongly opposed

the condonation of delay and has justifiably stated that no

grounds or sufficient reasons have been disclosed in the

application in support of the prayer for condonation of delay.

What ought to have been stated in the application itself has,

however, been mentioned in the Rejoinder. The Appellant pleads

that he was awaiting the outcome of seven Writ Petitions filed

by the Respondent seeking the quashing of proceedings

initiated against it by the Income Tax Authorities. The Appellant

has argued that the delay was caused because of the pendency

of these Writ Petitions, which were eventually disposed of vide

Orders dated 11.12.2009. The Income Tax Authorities were

directed by the Writ Court to pass fresh orders under Section

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We see no causal relationship

between these two happenings.

3. The Appellant has cited several Judgments of the Supreme

Court to the effect that meritorious matters should not be

thrown out because of law of limitation, as this would lead to

justice being defeated [Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag -

vs- Mst. Katiji, 1987 (28) ELT 185 (SC)]. Several Judgments of

the Supreme Court enunciating that in law the period of delay

may not be wholly determinative of sufficient cause for

condondation of delay [N. Balakrishnan -vs- M. Krishnamurthy,

AIR 1998 SC 3222, State (NCT of Delhi) -vs- Ahmed Jaan, (2008)

14 SCC 582 and O.P. Kathpalia -vs- Lakhmir Singh, 1984 (4)

SCC 660] have been relied upon. In the very recent Judgment,

dated 9.6.2010, their Lordships have, in Civil Appeal

No.2395/2008 titled Improvement Trust, Ludhiana -vs-

Ujagar Singh, opined that - "unless malafides are writ large on

the conduct of the party, generally as a normal rule, delay

should be condoned". While the Appellant has been lax in his

approach, we cannot detect any malafides in his conduct.

4. We will briefly dwell on the facts of the case. The

Appellant had received a sum of ` 69,00,000/- in full and final

settlement of all his claims against the Respondent Company. A

Memorandum of Understanding was signed on 11.7.2006, the

terms of which, inter alia, are that the Appellant would not take

any action which would harm the Respondent, that the

Appellant would keep confidential all the information that he

had received while in the service of the Respondent, and that

the Appellant would not pursue any complaints against the

Company. Since these covenants have been violated, the

Respondent has filed a Suit for declaration, injunction, recovery

and damages, in the course of which the impugned ad interim

injunction came to be passed.

5. Having perused the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in its various pronouncements, we are persuaded to condone the

delay, largely because it is of a relatively short period of 39 days

only and no malafides are attributable to the Appellant.

6. The application is allowed and the delay is condoned,

subject to the payment of ` 10,000/- payable by the Applicant

within two weeks in favour of Legal Aid for Poor, Women,

Children and SC&ST, Delhi High Court, New Delhi.

FAO(OS) No.139/2010

7. Renotify for consideration on 30.11.2010.

                                           ( VIKRAMAJIT SEN )
                                                 JUDGE




                                           ( MUKTA GUPTA )
August 18, 2010                                 JUDGE
tp