ORIENTAL AROMA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD v. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Judgment

[2010] 2 S.C.R. 1172 A B 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. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPRN. 1173 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]