ORIENTAL AROMA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. versus GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 1172 · Decided: 26-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 1172 
ORIENTAL AROMA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. 
v. 
GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 
AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 2075 of 2010) 
FEBRUARY 26, 2010 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, 1963 - s.5 - Condonation of delay -
C Appeal by Government Corporation against judgment and 
decree in civil suit - Also application under for condonation 
of delay of 4 years - Allowed by Division Bench - Justification 
of - Held: Not justified - Law Department of the Government 
Corporation did not approach High Court with clean hands -
D High Court committed grave error by condoning more thf]n 
four years' delay in filing of appeal ignoring the judicially 
accepted parameters for exercise of discretion uls. 5 - Thus, 
order of High Court set aside - Application for condonation 
of delay dismissed - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - 0 41 r. 
E 3A. 
The question which arose for consideration was 
whether the Division Bench of High Court was justified 
in condoning more than four years' delay in filing of 
appeal by the respondents against judgment and decree 
F passed by the Civil Judge in the Special Civil Suit. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The law of limitation is founded on public 
G policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with 
the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to 
ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek 
remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy 
must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. 
H 
1172 
ORIENTAL AROMA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. v. 
1173 
GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPRN. 
To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a A 
period within which legal remedy can be availed for 
redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts 
are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if 
sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy 
within the stipulated time. The expression "sufficient B 
cause" employed in section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 
and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the 
· courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub 
serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule 
can be laid down in dealing with the applications for C 
condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated 
adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of 
short duration and a stricter approach where the delay 
is inordinate. [Para 8] [1184-C-E] 
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji 
(1987) 2 SCC 107; N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 
(1998) 7 SCC 123; Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil 
(2001) 9 sec 106, relied on. 
D 
1.2. In dealing with the applications for condonation E 
of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/ 
instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasizing that 
same yardstick should be applied for deciding the 
applications for condonation of delay filed by private 
individuals and the State, observed that certain amount F 
of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because 
the State represents collective cause of the community 
and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a 
slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files 
from table to table consumes considerable time causing G 
delay. [Para 8] [1184-F-H; 1185-A] 
G. Ramegowda v. Sp/. Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 2 
SCC 142; State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 
H 
1174 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 
A 132; State of UP. v. Harish Chandra (1996) 9 SCC 309; State 
of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu (1996) 10 SCC 635; State of 
Nagaland-v. Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752; State (NCT of 
Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan (2008) 14 SCC 582, relied on. 
B 
2.1. A reading of the impugned order makes it clear 
that the High Court did make a bald reference to the 
application for condonation of delay filed by the 
respondents but allowed the same without adverting to 
the averments contained therein and the reply filed on 
c behalf of the appellant. The High Court erroneously 
assumed that the delay was of 1067 days, though, as a 
matter of fact, the appeal was filed after more than four 
years. Another erroneous assumption made by the High 
Court was that the appellant had not filed reply to 
D controvert the averments contained in the application._for 
condonation of delay. It may have been possible for this 
Court to ignore the first error in the impugned order 
because by deleting the figures and words
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.