Madras High Court
The Project Director vs N.Balaiah (Died) on 25 October, 2024
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
C.M.P(MD)Nos.4613, 4608, 4622 and 4626 of 2023
in C.M.A(MD)SR Nos.2016, 2015, 2018 and 2019 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
C.M.P(MD)Nos.4613, 4608, 4622 and 4626 of 2023
in C.M.A(MD)SR Nos.2016, 2015, 2018 and 2019 of 2023
C.M.P.(MD)No.4613 of 2023
The Project Director,
National Highways No.45E & 220,
National Highways Authority of India
Having his Office at Plot No.3,
Suriya Towers,
2nd Floor, 1st East Street,
K.K.Nagar (Near Muthuvelrajan Hospital)
Madurai - 625 020.
Presently at No.1, Aishwaryam Heights
Indira Nagar,
1st Street Sennamanaickenpatti (PO)
Thadikombu road,
Dindigul - 624 004. ... Appellant
versus
1. N.Balaiah (died)
2. The Special District Revenue Officer/
Competent Authority for Land Acquisition
(National Highways – 45E & 220)
Collectorate Buildings, Theni.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P(MD)Nos.4613, 4608, 4622 and 4626 of 2023
in C.M.A(MD)SR Nos.2016, 2015, 2018 and 2019 of 2023
3. Pappa
4. B.Muthusamy
5. S.Lakshmi
6. M.Muthulakshmi
(Respondents 3 to 6 are bought on record
as the legal heirs of the deceased 1st
respondent vide order dated 25.10.2024) ... Respondents
Prayer in CMP(MD)No.4613 of 2023: Petition filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 221 days in filing the CMA(MD)SR No.
2016 of 2023.
Prayer in CMA(MD)SR No.2016 of 2023: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 37(1) & 2 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set
aside the order in Arbitration O.P.No.22 of 2017 dated 25.10.2021 on the file of
the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.U.Srinivasan
C.M.P.(MD)No.4608 of 2023
The Project Director,
National Highways No.45E & 220,
National Highways Authority of India
Having his Office at Plot No.3,
Suriya Towers,
2nd Floor, 1st East Street,
K.K.Nagar (Near Muthuvelrajan Hospital)
Madurai - 625 020.
Presently at No.1, Aishwaryam Heights
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P(MD)Nos.4613, 4608, 4622 and 4626 of 2023
in C.M.A(MD)SR Nos.2016, 2015, 2018 and 2019 of 2023
Indira Nagar,
1st Street Sennamanaickenpatti (PO)
Thadikombu road,
Dindigul - 624 004. ... Appellant
versus
1. N.Ramachandran
2. The Special District Revenue Officer/
Competent Authority for Land Acquisition
(National Highways – 45E & 220)
Collectorate Buildings,
Theni. ... Respondents
Prayer in CMP(MD)No.4608 of 2023: Petition filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 221 days in filing the CMA(MD)SR No.
2015 of 2023.
Prayer in CMA(MD)SR No.2015 of 2023: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 37(1) & 2 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set
aside the order in Arbitration O.P.No.24 of 2017 dated 25.10.2021 on the file of
the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.U.Srinivasan
3/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P(MD)Nos.4613, 4608, 4622 and 4626 of 2023
in C.M.A(MD)SR Nos.2016, 2015, 2018 and 2019 of 2023
C.M.P.(MD)No.4622 of 2023
The Project Director,
National Highways No.45E & 220,
National Highways Authority of India
Having his Office at Plot No.3,
Suriya Towers,
2nd Floor, 1st East Street,
K.K.Nagar (Near Muthuvelrajan Hospital)
Madurai - 625 020.
Presently at No.1, Aishwaryam Heights
Indira Nagar,
1st Street Sennamanaickenpatti (PO)
Thadikombu road,
Dindigul - 624 004. ... Appellant
versus
1. R.Ramamoorthy
2. The Special District Revenue Officer/
Competent Authority for Land Acquisition
(National Highways – 45E & 220)
Collectorate Buildings,
Theni. ... Respondents
Prayer in CMP(MD)No.4622 of 2023: Petition filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 221 days in filing the CMA(MD)SR No.
2018 of 2023.
Prayer in CMA(MD)SR No.2018 of 2023: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 37(1) & 2 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set
aside the order in Arbitration O.P.No.05 of 2017 dated 25.11.2021 on the file of
4/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P(MD)Nos.4613, 4608, 4622 and 4626 of 2023
in C.M.A(MD)SR Nos.2016, 2015, 2018 and 2019 of 2023
the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.U.Srinivasan
For R1 : Mr.R.Govindaraj
For R2 : Mr.D.Sachi Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
C.M.P.(MD)No.4626 of 2023
The Project Director,
National Highways No.45E & 220,
National Highways Authority of India
Having his Office at Plot No.3,
Suriya Towers,
2nd Floor, 1st East Street,
K.K.Nagar (Near Muthuvelrajan Hospital)
Madurai - 625 020.
Presently at No.1, Aishwaryam Heights
Indira Nagar,
1st Street Sennamanaickenpatti (PO)
Thadikombu road,
Dindigul - 624 004. ... Appellant
versus
1. M.Ashokkumar
2. The Special District Revenue Officer/
Competent Authority for Land Acquisition
(National Highways – 45E & 220)
Collectorate Buildings,
Theni. ... Respondents
Prayer in CMP(MD)No.4626 of 2023: Petition filed under Section 5 of the
5/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P(MD)Nos.4613, 4608, 4622 and 4626 of 2023
in C.M.A(MD)SR Nos.2016, 2015, 2018 and 2019 of 2023
Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 221 days in filing the CMA(MD)SR No.
2019 of 2023.
Prayer in CMA(MD)SR No.2019 of 2023: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 37(1) & 2 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set
aside the order in Arbitration O.P.No.32 of 2017 dated 24.11.2021 on the file of
the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.U.Srinivasan
For R1 : Mr.R.Govindaraj
For R2 : Mr.D.Sachi Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
( Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)
These petitions have been filed to condone the delay in filing the above
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
2. Since the issue is one and the same, all the matters are clubbed together
and a common order is passed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P(MD)Nos.4613, 4608, 4622 and 4626 of 2023
in C.M.A(MD)SR Nos.2016, 2015, 2018 and 2019 of 2023
3. This Court in a similar condone delay petition filed by the same
petitioner with regard to the same issue in C.M.P.(MD)No.9180 of 2024 in
C.M.A(MD)SR No.79016 of 2023, has dismissed the petition by observing as
follows.
"11. Each and every day of delay has to be explained. The petitioner has not
given any reason as to why they have not filed the copy application in time
and also why they have not filed the appeal even after obtaining the corrected
copy of the order in time. Therefore, the delay has not been properly
explained. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the case of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources
Department) Rep. by Executive Engineer vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and
Contractors Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2021)6 SCC 460, wherein it has been held
that the delay of beyond 90 days is only an exception and not a rule. The
relevant para 58 is extracted hereunder:-
“58. Given the object sought to be achieved under both the Arbitration
Act and the Commercial Courts Act, that is, the speedy resolution of
disputes, the expression “sufficient cause” is not elastic enough to
cover long delays beyond the period provided by the appeal provision
itself. Besides, the expression “sufficient cause” is not itself a loose
panacea for the ill of pressing negligent and stale claims. This Court,
in Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, has
held:
9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant
could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word
“sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, inasmuch as may be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P(MD)Nos.4613, 4608, 4622 and 4626 of 2023
in C.M.A(MD)SR Nos.2016, 2015, 2018 and 2019 of 2023
necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word
“sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a
platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the
purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case,
duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a
cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the
party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a
want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and
circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party “has
not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”. However, the facts
and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to
enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason
that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised
judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the court that he was
prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case,
and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court
should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The
court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was
merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See Manindra Land
and Building Corpn. Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee [AIR 1964 SC
1336] , Mata Din v. A. Narayanan [(1969) 2 SCC 770 : AIR 1970
SC 1953] , Parimal v. Veena [(2011) 3 SCC 545 : (2011) 2 SCC
(Civ) 1 : AIR 2011 SC 1150] and Maniben Devraj Shah v.
Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai [(2012) 5 SCC 157 : (2012)
3 SCC (Civ) 24 : AIR 2012 SC 1629] .)
10. In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar [AIR 1964 SC 993]
this Court explained the difference between a “good cause” and a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P(MD)Nos.4613, 4608, 4622 and 4626 of 2023
in C.M.A(MD)SR Nos.2016, 2015, 2018 and 2019 of 2023
“sufficient cause” and observed that every “sufficient cause” is a
good cause and vice versa. However, if any difference exists it can
only be that the requirement of good cause is complied with on a
lesser degree of proof than that of “sufficient cause”.
11. The expression “sufficient cause” should be given a
liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but
only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot
be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause
has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular
case and no straitjacket formula is possible. (Vide Madanlal v.
Shyamlal [(2002) 1 SCC 535 : AIR 2002 SC 100] and Ram Nath
Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [(2002) 3 SCC 195 : AIR 2002 SC 1201] .”
12. In this case, the delay has not been properly explained and the reason also
has not been given for delay in filing the copy application. Therefore, by
relying the above said judgment, this Court finds that the petitioner has not
made out the requirements that he has bona fide reason. Though the length of
the delay is not the matter, but the reason is only the significance. If there is
valid reason, the Court normally will not consider the length of the delay. If
there is no reason, the Court could not consider the days of the delay.
Though in this case, the delay in filing the appeal is 108 days, however, the
petitioner has not given any particular about the delay and proper reason for
the delay. Therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the delay is only
an exception and not a rule. Further, it is well settled proposition of law that
at the time of considering the application for the delay, the Court need not go
into depth about the merits of the case. The affidavit filed by the petitioner
has spoken almost upto 13th para only about the proceedings and also the
merit of the case and only in 14th para, mentioned about the delay, however,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P(MD)Nos.4613, 4608, 4622 and 4626 of 2023
in C.M.A(MD)SR Nos.2016, 2015, 2018 and 2019 of 2023
there is no valid and acceptable reason given for the delay. It is well settled
that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, merits of the case
cannot go into and what has to be seen that as to whether sufficient cause has
been shown by the applicant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal
before the Court. Therefore, under these circumstances, this Court is not
satisfied with the reason stated in the accompanying affidavit. Hence, the
present petition filed to condone the delay of 108 days in filing the appeal in
CMA(MD)SR No.79016 of 2023, is dismissed. No costs."
4. Since the present petitions are also filed by the same petitioner to
condone the delay in filing the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals without any
valid and acceptable reason and since the issue is one and the same, we are
inclined to dismiss these petitions on the same lines.
5. Accordingly, the present petititons are dismissed. No costs.
[P.V.,J.] [K.K.R.K.,J.]
25.10.2024
ogy
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P(MD)Nos.4613, 4608, 4622 and 4626 of 2023
in C.M.A(MD)SR Nos.2016, 2015, 2018 and 2019 of 2023
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Theni.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P(MD)Nos.4613, 4608, 4622 and 4626 of 2023
in C.M.A(MD)SR Nos.2016, 2015, 2018 and 2019 of 2023
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
ogy
C.M.P(MD)Nos.4613, 4608, 4622 and 4626 of 2023
in C.M.A(MD)SR Nos.2016, 2015, 2018 and 2019 of 2023
25.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
