Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 may be pressed into service to condone the delay in filing necessary ‘Interlocutory Application’, however, it is for the Applicant to explain the delay that has occasioned to the subjective satisfaction of the Tribunal – Jain Irrigation Systems Limited Vs. Empee Sugars and Chemicals Limited – NCLAT Chennai

The Operational Creditor has filed the instant Appeal being aggrieved against the Order of Adjudicating Authority in dismissing its Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. NCLAT dismissed the appeal and held that it is significantly pointed out that the condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Of course, the condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court/Tribunal. It cannot be forgotten that limitation is a prescription of repose and unless the statute allows the Court, an element of discretion, by way of an application for condonation of delay, the Court/Tribunal has no power to find out a method in granting relief to a person who may appear to have suffered. When there is want of due care and attention or want of due diligence, the Tribunal may decline to entertain an application, as there is no sufficient cause for the delay. A glance of the ingredients of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 unerringly points out that the explanation of delay must be to the satisfaction of the Court/Tribunal. To put it candidly, an acceptance of explanation is the only criterion for condonation of delay. Of course, based on the facts of a given case Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 may be pressed into service to condone the delay in filing necessary interlocutory application, in the considered opinion of this Tribunal. However, it is for the Applicant/Appellant to explain the delay that has occasioned to the subjective satisfaction of the Tribunal.

Related Posts

Scroll to Top