Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Padmsey Khimji Chheda and another, filed a Notice of Motion seeking condonation of 3014 days delay in filing Appeal (Lodging) No. 569 of 2014 against the judgment and order dated 14 November 2005 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 380 of 2005. The delay was computed from the date of the impugned order. The applicants had previously filed an appeal (Appeal No. 210 of 2008) which was withdrawn with liberty on 1 April 2008. Thereafter, they pursued various proceedings including Chamber Summons No. 1649 of 2006, Appeal No. 195 of 2013, and SLP No. 15519 of 2013, all of which were dismissed. The court examined whether the explanation for the delay constituted 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the applicants had been grossly negligent and had not explained each day's delay. The court noted that the applicants had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay, and their conduct showed lack of diligence. The court held that the delay was not bonafide and dismissed the application. The appeal was also dismissed as a consequence.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - The applicants sought condonation of 3014 days delay in filing appeal against an arbitration order. The court held that the explanation for the delay was not satisfactory and the applicants failed to show sufficient cause for each day's delay. The application was dismissed. (Paras 1-18)
B) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Gross Negligence - The court observed that the conduct of the applicants in prosecuting the matter showed gross negligence and lack of diligence. The delay was not bonafide and the applicants were not entitled to the discretionary relief. (Paras 10-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 3014 days in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, given the explanation of the applicants.
Final Decision
The Notice of Motion is dismissed. Consequently, Appeal No. 569 of 2014 is also dismissed.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Each day's delay must be explained
- Gross negligence
- Limitation Act
- 1963 Section 5
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (04) 67
Notice of Motion (L) No. 80 of 2016 in Appeal No. 569 of 2014 in Arbitration Petition No. 380 of 2005
Anoop V. Mohta, A.A. Sayed
Mr. Bhavin H. Gada a/w Ms. Yogini Gada, Mr. N.B. Merchant i/b M/s. Harakchand & Co. for Applicants; Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sankalp Anantwar, Mr. Rishabh Vora i/b M/s. Hariani & Co. for Respondent Nos.1(A) to 1(F), 1(G) (II) to (III), 2(B) to 2(G).
Padmsey Khimji Chheda & Anr.
Kesarben Laxmichand Dedhia & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Application for condonation of delay in filing appeal against an arbitration order.
Remedy Sought
Condonation of 3014 days delay in filing Appeal No. 569 of 2014.
Filing Reason
The applicants were aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14 November 2005 in Arbitration Petition No. 380 of 2005 and sought to file an appeal belatedly.
Previous Decisions
The impugned order dated 14 November 2005 was passed in Arbitration Petition No. 380 of 2005. The applicants had earlier filed Appeal No. 210 of 2008 which was withdrawn with liberty on 1 April 2008. Chamber Summons No. 1649 of 2006 was dismissed on 15 February 2013. Appeal No. 195 of 2013 was disposed of on 22 July 2013. SLP No. 15519 of 2013 was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Issues
Whether the delay of 3014 days in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicants submitted that they were pursuing other remedies bonafide and the delay was not intentional.
The respondents argued that the applicants were grossly negligent and failed to explain each day's delay.
Ratio Decidendi
For condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant must show sufficient cause for each day's delay. Gross negligence and lack of diligence disentitle the applicant to discretionary relief.
Judgment Excerpts
The Applicants/Appellants have taken out this Notice of Motion dated 6 January 2016 for a condonation of delay of 3014 days in filing Appeal (Lodging) No. 569 of 2014, against the Judgment and order dated 14 November 2005 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 380 of 2005.
The conduct of the applicants in prosecuting the matter shows gross negligence and lack of diligence.
Procedural History
The impugned order was passed on 14 November 2005. The applicants filed Appeal No. 210 of 2008 which was withdrawn with liberty on 1 April 2008. They then filed Chamber Summons No. 1649 of 2006 which was dismissed on 15 February 2013. Appeal No. 195 of 2013 was disposed of on 22 July 2013. SLP No. 15519 of 2013 was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The present Notice of Motion was filed on 6 January 2016 seeking condonation of delay in filing Appeal No. 569 of 2014.
Acts & Sections
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
