Principal Secretary To The vs M/S. Jagganath Chaudhury
2022 Latest Caselaw 1809 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                             ARBA No.28 Of 2019
                            (Through hybrid mode)

        Principal Secretary to the              ....           Appellants
        Government of Odisha and others
                                                     Mr. T. Patnaik, ASC
                                   -versus-

        M/s. Jagganath Chaudhury                ....          Respondent
                                                               Mr. L.K.
                                                              Moharana,
                                                               Advocate


                 CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                   ORDER

Order                             14.03.2022
No.                           I.A. No.60 of 2019
  5.    1.      Mr. Patnaik, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel

appears on behalf of appellants (State). He submits, explanation on

sufficient causes for the delay of 107 days has been given in

paragraphs 4 to 8 of the application.

2. Mr. Moharana, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite

party-respondent and relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in

Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) v.

Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. reported in

(2021) 6 SCC 460, paragraphs 58, 59, 65 and 67. Paragraph 65 is

reproduced below:

// 2 //

"Apart from this, there is a long delay of 131 days beyond the 60-day period provided for filing an appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act. There is no explanation worth the name contained in the condonation of delay application, beyond the usual file-pushing and administrative exigency. This appeal is therefore dismissed."

3. It appears from paragraph-4 of the application that State, in the

matter of taking a decision on preferring appeal, had obtained approval

of the Chief Minister. It is presumed that there was substantial

deliberation in requiring such approval. The Supreme Court in

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji reported in AIR

1987 SC 1353 has also said regarding condonation of delay and

adjudication on merits.

4. Causes for the delay shown are accepted. The delay is

condoned.

5. I.A. no.60 of 2019 is disposed of.

6. List the appeal on 11th April, 2022 as prayed for by Mr.

Patnaik.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Sks