Waiting for the outcome of another adjudication proceedings cannot be a cogent, valid or legal ground to condone the delay nor does such ground could come under expression “sufficient cause”.
The contention of the appellants was that they were awaiting the outcome in the appeals by the company MPL is patently misconceived and cannot be utilized for the purposes of condoning the delay. The appeal is required to be filed within 45 days. Such limitation was known to the appellants and, therefore, waiting for the outcome of another adjudication proceedings cannot be a cogent, valid or legal ground to condone the delay nor does such ground could come under expression “sufficient cause”.
There is no doubt that the expression of “sufficient cause” is intended to advance substantial justice which itself presupposes no negligence or inaction on the part of the appellant. In the instant case, waiting for the outcome of a proceeding in another adjudication matter or exploring the possibilities of challenging the impugned orders without giving satisfactory explanations tantamounts to negligence or inaction on the part of the appellants and, therefore, such ground cannot be termed as bonafide. The Supreme Court in Balwant Singh (Supra) has held that the expression “sufficient cause” implies the presence of adequate and legal reasons which in the instant case is lacking. We find that sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay which is just one of the ingredients which has to be considered by the Court/ Tribunal.
Consequently, for the reasons stated aforesaid, we do not find any reasons to condone the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. The Miscellaneous Applications are rejected, as a result of which, the appeals are dismissed.
Judgement link : http://sat.gov.in/english/pdf/E2019_JO2018325.PDF