Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 30 (ALL)

Regent Drugs Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U. P.

2018-01-04

PANKAJ NAQVI

body2018
JUDGMENT : PANKAJ NAQVI, J. 1. Heard Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Yash Tandon for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Upadhyay, the learned standing counsel. This writ petition is preferred against the order dated 14.11.2017, passed by the C.C.R.A, Allahabad in Stamp Appeal No. 59/2013-14 (State of U.P. and others v. M/s Regent Pvt. Ltd), whereby delay in filing the appeal has been condoned. 2. A deed of amalgamation was approved by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court vide order dated 20.5.2003 whereby certain liabilities, current assets, etc. of J.K.D.P.L were transferred to the petitioner/RDL, which became a subject matter of dispute under Section 40/47/33 of the Stamp Act before the ADM, Amroha who on 2.9.2011 after hearing the petitioner, determined the pay ability of stamp to the tune of Rs. 4 Cr along with statutory interest, penalty of Rs. 2 Cr, registration charges Rs. 5020/-, net amounting to Rs. 6,00,05,020/-. The petitioner filed a review of the order dated 2.9.2011 on 29.9.2011 which came to be allowed on 14.12.2011. The State challenged the order dated 14.12.2011 in Stamp Appeal No. 59/2013-14 under section 56 of the Stamp Act before the C.C.R.A, Allahabad on 17.10.2013 without any application for condonation of delay. Upon an objection raised by the petitioner that in the absence of any delay condonation application, appeal preferred by the State is liable to be dismissed, the State filed an application for delay condonation in the pending appeal on 3.11.2017, allegedly without service of notice upon the appellant/respondent State on the premise that the order dated 14.12.2011 was not placed or brought to the knowledge of any authority and it was only on a complaint in the year 2013 that the order came to the knowledge of the Department and it was then decided to file an appeal. The petitioner was granted time on 7.11.2017 to file objections to the delay but no objection in writing was filed, only oral objections were advanced. The C.C.R.A on 14.11.2017 condoned the delay in filing of the appeal and stayed the operation of the order dated 14.12.2011, fixing 19.12.2017 for hearing of the appeal. Challenging the order dated 14.11.2017, condoning the delay in the pending appeal, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The C.C.R.A on 14.11.2017 condoned the delay in filing of the appeal and stayed the operation of the order dated 14.12.2011, fixing 19.12.2017 for hearing of the appeal. Challenging the order dated 14.11.2017, condoning the delay in the pending appeal, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that delay has been mechanically condoned, the order dated 14.11.2017 is liable to be set aside/quashed and that of the review dated 14.12.2011 be restored. 4. The learned standing counsel has vehemently opposed the submission that the parent order dated 2.9.2011 was an order passed after hearing both the parties, review itself was not maintainable but as the said order was not placed before the competent authority, a belated appeal was filed to which subsequently a delay condonation was also filed and once delay has been condoned on relevant consideration, there is no good ground to quash the order, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 5. It is well settled that a narrow and a pedantic approach is not to be adopted while disposing of the delay condonation applications, rather the Court should adopt a liberal approach as ordinarily no litigant stands to gain by the dismissal of a case on the ground of laches unless the laches are so writ large that they do not inspire the confidence of the Court. The Apex court time and again has struck a note of caution that claims should be decided on merits, rather than non-suiting them on the ground of laches. 6. The Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and another v. Bal Kishan Mathur, (2014) 1 SCC 592 held that in matters of condonation, State cannot seek any preferential treatment and in a situation where there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, the Court can always take a broad and liberal view so as to advance substantial justice instead of terminating a proceeding on the ground of limitation, unless explanation furnished in the delay is wholly unacceptable or if no explanation whatsoever is offered or if the delay is inordinate and third-party rights had become embedded during the interregnum the courts should lean in favour of condonation. 7. The above dicta is squarely applicable on the facts of the present case. 7. The above dicta is squarely applicable on the facts of the present case. Delay does not appear to be deliberate or prompted on the ground of negligence or lack of bona fides. Admittedly, it is not a case where a third-party interest has intervened. The condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion. Once discretion has been exercised on relevant considerations, then this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction would loath to interfere against the same. There is no jurisdictional defect in the order dated 14.11.2017 in condoning the delay. 8. The writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to canvass all factual/legal submission before the C.C.R.A, Allahabad, except the issue of delay, which has attained finality with this order. 9. However, it is provided that the pending Stamp Appeal No. 59/2013-14 (State of U.P. and others v. M/s Regent Pvt. Ltd), on the next date, shall as far as possible, be heard finally. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment. No coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner till disposal of the appeal.