INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. versus SUBRATA BORAH CHOWLEK, ETC.

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 776 · Decided: 12-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 776 
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. 
v. 
SUBRATA BORAH CHOWLEK, ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9726-9727 of 2010) 
NOVEMBER 12, 2010 
[D.K. JAIN AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
LIMITATION ACT, 1963: 
c 
s.5 - Condonation of delay in filing appeal by a public 
sector undertaking - Declined by High Court - Held: -
Sufficient cause had been made out for condonation of delay 
in filing the appeal and, therefore, the High court erred in 
declining the prayer- It is true that even upon showing a 
0 sufficient cause, a party is not entitled to the condonation of 
delay as a matter of right, yet it is trite that in construing 
sufficient cause, courts generally follow a liberal approach, 
particularly, when no negligence, inaction or ma/a fides can 
be imputed to the party - It is manifest that though s. 5 
E envisages the explanation of delay to the satisfaction of the 
court, and makes no distinction between the State and the 
citizen, nonetheless, adoption of a strict standard of proof in 
case of the Government, which is dependent on the actions 
of its officials, who often do not have any personal interest in 
transactions, may lead to grave miscarriage of justice and, 
F therefore, certain amount of latitude is permissible in such 
cases - In the instant cases, the conduct of the appellants 
does not indicate inaction, negligence or ma/a fides - The 
explanation furnished for the marginal delay of 59 days, 
constitutes a sufficient cause and, therefore, deserves to be 
G accepted - The impugned judgement is set aside, and the 
matter remanded to Division Bench of High Court for 
consideration on merits - Government litigation - Delay in 
filing appeal. 
H 
776 
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. v. 
777 
SUBRATA BORAH CHOWLEK, ETC. 
Shankuntal Devi vs. Kuntal Kumari & Ors.(1969) 1 SCR 
A 
1006; The State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator; 
Howrah Municipality & Ors. 1972 ( 2 ) SCR 874 = (1972) 1 
SCC 366; N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 (1) 
Suppl. SCR 403 = (1998) 7 SCC 123 ; Sita/ Prasad Saxena 
Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1985 ( 1 ) SCR 659 = (1985) 1 SCC 
B 
163; ,Ram/al, Motilal & Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Co/afields 
Ltd.(1962) 2 SCR 762; Ram Nath Alias Ram Nath Sahu & 
Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Ors. 252002 ( 2 ) SCR 77 =(2002) 
3 SCC 195, State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan 2008 (12 
) SCR 28 = (2008) 14 SCC 582; State of Nagai/and Vs. Lipk c 
Ao & Ors. 2005 (3 ) SCR 108 = (2005) 3 SCC 752, Special 
Tehsi/dar, Land Acquisition Kera/a Vs. K. V. Ayisumma 1996 
( 3) Suppl. SCR 848 =(1996) 10 SCC 634; State of Haryana 
Vs. Chanda Mani & Ors. 1996 ( 1 ) SCR 1060 = (1996) 3 
sec 132 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
(1969) 1 SCR 1006 
relied on 
Para 7 
1972 ( 2 ) SCR 874 
relied on 
Para 7 
1998 ( 1 ) Suppl. SCR 403 relied on. 
Para 7 
1985 ( 1 ) SCR 659 
relied on 
Para 7 
(1962) ·2 SCR 762 
relied on 
Para 8 
2002 ( 2 ) SCR 77 
relied on 
Para 9 
2008 (12 ) SCR 28 
relied on 
Para 10 
2005 (3 ) SCR 108 
relied on 
Para 10 
1996 ( 3 ) Suppl. SCR 848 relied on 
Para 10 
1996 ( 1 ) SCR 1060 
relied on 
Para 10 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
9726-9727 of 2010. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
Form the Judgment & Order dated 29.01.2010 of the High 
Court of Guwahati at Guwahati in Writ Appeal (Civil) No. 
Miscellaneous Case Nos. 2966 & 2967 of 2009. 
Goolam E. Vahanvati, A.G., V.N. Koura, Aruna Mathur, 
8 Paramjeet Beripal (for Arputham, Aruna & Co.) for the 
Appellants. 
P. Goswami, Rajiv Mehta, Biswanath Agrawalla for the 
Respondent. 
c 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
D.K. JAIN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The present appeals, by special leave, are directed 
against order and judgment dated 29th January, 2010 passed 
D by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, whereby 
appellants' application seeking condonation of delay of 59 days 
in preferring the appeal was rejected and their writ appeal was 
dismissed in limine as being barred by limitation. 
E 
3. The respondents herein filed writ petitions in the High 
Court seeking regularization of their services from the dates of 
their initial appointment with consequential benefits. A learned 
Single Judge of the High Court, vide his judgment dated 29th 
April 2009, allowed the writ petitions, and directed appellant 
F No.2 viz. the Assam Oil Division of the Indian Oil Corporation 
to treat the respondents as having been regularly appointed 
from the date of their initial appoint
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.