The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's refusal to condone a delay of 125 days. The petitioner, citing personal health and document misplacement, sought condonation for late filing, which was contested by the respondents. The High Court upheld the National Commission’s decision, emphasizing that mere willingness to produce documents at a later stage does not constitute sufficient cause. The ruling stresses adherence to legal timelines, warning against casual drafting of delay applications without proper documentation.

1. Petitioner’s Argument (Paragraphs 4-9):
   The petitioner, Prof. Nelly Rodrigues, sought to challenge the National Commission's refusal to condone a 125-day delay in filing a revision petition. She cited illness and misplacement of documents as reasons for the delay and contended that the delay could have been condoned considering these grounds.

2. Respondents’ Argument (Paragraphs 14-17):
   The respondents argued that the petitioner’s application lacked details and failed to disclose the exact days of delay. They emphasized that the reasons provided were vague, unsupported by documentation, and inconsistent with earlier statements.

3. Court’s Findings (Paragraphs 18-34):
   The court found the delay application to be casually drafted, noting discrepancies in the petitioner’s reasoning. The absence of medical records to substantiate the claim of illness and failure to detail the shifting of her advocate’s office were key shortcomings. It ruled that the National Commission correctly dismissed the application, as no sufficient cause was shown.

4. Legal Ratio (Paragraphs 30-34):
   The High Court emphasized the principles of condoning delays as outlined in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, stressing that applications must be drafted carefully with supporting documents. Courts should not condone delays merely based on oral submissions or promises to submit evidence later.

5. Conclusion (Paragraphs 35-36):
   The petition was dismissed, with the court noting that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be invoked as the National Commission’s decision was well-reasoned and not perverse.

6. Cause of Action:
   The petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the National Commission’s dismissal of a delay condonation application.

7. Delay Details:

   • Petitioner delayed filing a revision by 125 days after the State Consumer Commission's order.
   • Justifications: Petitioner's illness (spinal stenosis) and the shifting of her advocate’s office.

8. Court's Observations:

   • The application lacked proper documentation and failed to specify the exact delay.
   • The petitioner could not substantiate her claims with sufficient proof at the time of filing.

9. Rulings Cited:

   • Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy: Guidelines for considering delay condonation.
   • Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain & Anr: Delay condonation principles reaffirmed.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Article 227 of the Constitution of India:
  Governs the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts over subordinate courts and tribunals.

• Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
  Governs the condonation of delays, requiring a sufficient cause for the extension of time limits in legal proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi:

The ruling highlights that in order to condone a delay, applicants must present a well-drafted application with detailed and verified reasons, supported by necessary documentation. A mere promise to submit documents later or providing inconsistent reasons, as done by the petitioner, cannot justify condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.