Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs R.Karunanithi on 7 March, 2022
CMP.No.872 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.106016 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 07.03.2022
Coram :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
CMP.No.872 of 2022
in
W.A. SR.No.106016 of 2021
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Commercial Taxes and Registration Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner,
of Commercial Taxes,
O/o.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Ezhilagam, Chennai – 600 005.
3. Mr.N.Viswanathan,
Assistant Commissioner,
Inspection Cell,
O/o.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Ezhilagam, Chennai. ...Appellants
Vs.
R.Karunanithi,
Joint Commissioner (CT) (Enforcement),
Court Compound,
Trichy – 620 001. ... Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
CMP.No.872 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.106016 of 2021
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 1442 days in filing the above
writ appeal SR 106016 of 2021 as against the order dated 01.11.2017 made in
W.P.No.11575 of 2016.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Venkateswaran
Special Govt.Pleader (Taxes)
For Respondent : Mr.K.Krishnamurthy
ORDER
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay of
1442 days in filing the above writ appeal SR 106016 of 2021 as against the
order dated 01.11.2017 made in W.P.No.11575 of 2016.
2. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the certified copy of the order was made ready on 13.11.2017
and received on 15.11.2017. After obtaining the opinion of Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, it was decided to file an appeal. Accordingly, the appeal
was filed on 24.11.2021 with a delay of 1442 days. Learned Special
Government Pleader further submitted that due to administrative reasons, there
has been a delay and the delay is neither wilful nor wanton. Hence he prayed
this Court to allow this petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.872 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.106016 of 2021
3. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was a
delay of 1442 days in filing the writ appeal and no sufficient reasons have been
adduced in support of condonation of delay and therefore this CMP is liable to
be dismissed.
4. Heard both sides.
5. On reading of the affidavit, we find that no prima facie case is made
out to condone the delay, as the reasons adduced for the delay are not
acceptable.
6. It is apposite to point out that even if the delay is enormous, if there is
any justifiable ground, the delay has to be condoned. Assuming that, the delay
is very small and the reasons are not germane, the Court cannot condone the
same. In a similar circumstance, a Division Bench of this Court (SVNJ &
MVJ), by an order dated 15.02.2018, in the case of M/s.Ruskim Sea Foods
Limited vs. M/s.Evergreen Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd., reported in
MANU/TN/0876/2018, which were filed to condone the delay of 765 days in
preferring the Appeal, dismissed the said Petitions. Relevant Paragraph of the
said decision is extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.872 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.106016 of 2021
“32. Ordinarily, the 'Condonation of Delay' is a matter of discretion to
be exercised by the Concerned Court. Also, it is true that the length and
breadth of delay is not relevant, but the acceptance of explanation can only be
a relevant criterion for the concerned Court to deal with / condone the aspect
of 'Condonation of Delay'. However, in this regard, the Petitioner / concerned
litigant is to offer / ascribe sufficient reasons or project sufficient cause or
good cause to condone the delay with a view to enable the Concerned Court to
take a liberal view with a view to secure the ends of justice.
7. While dealing with yet another similar issue of condoning a huge
delay, a Division Bench of this Court, has observed as follows:
“4. The Court, in exercising discretion, particularly in these types of
Petitions, has to see the conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating
to its inaction or negligence. The above factors are relevant to be taken into
consideration as the fundamental principle is that Courts are required to
weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said
principle cannot be given a total go-by in the name of liberal approach.
There is an increasing tendency to perceive delay even in a non-serious
matter. Hence, the delay due to nonchalant attitude should be curbed at the
initial stage itself.
5 . Considering the above aspects and further the Affidavit filed for
condoning the delay, did not contain any details as to how the delay of 1860
days had occurred and that no plausible and proper explanation was
assigned for each and every day's delay, we are of the view that it is a fit
case where the discretion cannot be exercised for condonation of the delay.
Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Petition seeking condonation of 1860 days
delay in preferring the Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal
also stands dismissed.”
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of Majji
Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs Reddy Sridevi and others, reported in
MANU/SC/1269/2021, has held as follows:
“7.3 In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (supra), it is observed as
under:-
“The laws of limitation are founded on public policy.
Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as “statutes of
peace”. An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates
insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for
public order. The principle is based on the maxim “interest
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.872 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.106016 of 2021
reipublicae ut sit finis litium”, that is, the interest of the State
requires that there should be end to litigation but at the same time
laws of limitation are a means to ensure private justice
suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening diligence and
preventing oppression. The object for fixing time-limit for
litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal
remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see
that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal
remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the
laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.”
7.4 In the case of Basawaraj (supra), it is observed and held by this
Court that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised
judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It is
further observed that the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be
liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is
attributed to the party. It is further observed that even though
limitation may harshly affect rights of a party but it has to be
applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. It is further
observed that in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of
bona fides or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified
ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It is
observed that each application for condonation of delay has to be
decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It is
further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no
sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that
would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing
utter disregard to legislature. 7.5 In the case of Pundlik Jalam
Patil (supra), it is observed by this Court that the court cannot
enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity.
Delay defeats equity. The Courts help those who are vigilant and
“do not slumber over their rights”.
8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the averments
in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that as
such no explanation much less a sufficient or a satisfactory explanation
had been offered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – appellants before
the High Court for condonation of huge delay of 1011 days in preferring
the Second Appeal. The High Court is not at all justified in exercising its
discretion to condone such a huge delay. The High Court has not exercised
the discretion judiciously. The reasoning given by the High Court while
condoning huge delay of 1011 days is not germane. Therefore, the High
Court has erred in condoning the huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the
appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – original defendants. Impugned
order passed by the High Court is unsustainable both, on law as well as on
facts.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.872 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.106016 of 2021
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present Appeal is Allowed. The impugned order dated 16.09.2021 passed
by the High Court condoning the delay of 1011 days in preferring the
Second Appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein is hereby quashed and
set aside. Consequently, Second Appeal No.331 of 2021 preferred by
respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein stands dismissed on the ground of delay.
The present Appeal is accordingly Allowed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs."
9. For all the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to condone the
delay. Thus, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the
connected Writ Appeal in SR stage stands rejected. No costs.
(S.V.N., J.) (M.S.Q., J.)
07.03.2022
Speaking (or) Non-speaking Order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
dpq
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.872 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.106016 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
dpq
CMP.No.872 of 2022
in
W.A. SR.No.106016 of 2021
07.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.872 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.106016 of 2021
To
The Joint Commissioner (CT) (Enforcement),
Court Compound,
Trichy – 620 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
