AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
I.A. No.61 of 2019
Mr. Patnaik, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of appellants (State). He submits, explanation on sufficient causes for the delay of 109 days has been given in paragraphs 4 to 8 of the application.
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:
“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.”
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.
Causes for the delay shown are accepted. The delay is condoned.
I.A. no.61 of 2019 is disposed of.
List the appeal on 11th April, 2022 as prayed for by Mr. Patnaik.
…………………