KOLKATA WEST INTERNATIONAL CITY PVT. LTD. v. MR. BALDEV RAJ KHANNA S/O. LATE HIRA LAL KHANNA

2. In order to condone the delay in filing the FA, the Appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the FA. after the stipulated limitation period. An IA No. 671 of 2025 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. In the said IA, period of delay mentioned is 179 days and following reasons for delay / grounds for condonation have been mentioned:

(a) It took additional time for the Appellant to retrieve the necessary documents from the previous counsel. Appellant has to engage a new counsel at Delhi who requested further documents from the Appellant.

(b) Delay caused further due to occurrence of Durga Puja and Diwali vacations, during which the counsel was not available.

(c) Appellants also suffered shortage of staff during festive days

3. A perusal of the records before us show that the impugned order of the State Commission was pronounced 03.01.2024 FA has been filed on 13.01.2025 i.e. after a period of 376 days. Allowing the period of 163 days for getting the first free certified copy of the impugned order which was obtained on 14.06.2024 and the statutory permissible period of 30 days, the delay in filing FA comes to 183 days.

4. We have carefully gone through the reasons for delay / grounds for condonation

2

mentioned in IA No. 671 of 2025 as well as those adduced during the hearing in the light of observations/decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Commission in various cases. In Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through Legal Respresentative and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr. (2023) 10 SCC 531, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the lengths of delay being immaterial, each case for condonation of delay based on the existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. In Basawaraj and Another. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when a case is filed beyond the limitation period, the applicant must demonstrate "sufficient cause," meaning an adequate and enough reason for not approaching the court within the prescribed time. If the party is found to be negligent, lacking bona fides, or not acting diligently, there is no justified ground for condoning the delay. Courts are not justified in condoning such delays by imposing any conditions and must adhere to the established parameters for condonation of delay. Condoning delay without sufficient cause and proper justification would violate statutory provisions and show disregard for legislative intent. In Esha Bhattcharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [(2013) 12 SCC 649], the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed concern over the growing tendency to perceive delay as a trivial matter and to exhibit a lackadaisical attitude towards it, which needs to be addressed within the confines of legal parameters. In Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 10 SCC 765, the Supreme Court affirmed the principle that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously as prescribed by statute, even if it causes hardship to a particular party. The court cannot extend the limitation period on equitable grounds. In H. Dohil Constructions Co. (P) Ltd. v. Nahar Exports Ltd., (2015) 1 SCC 680 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that the law of limitation is based on sound

3

public policy, and therefore, applications for condonation of delay should be strictly construed in the absence of genuine reasons. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy v. LAO, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 observed that the law of limitation is rooted in the public policy of concluding litigation by forfeiting the remedy rather than the right itself, emphasizing that rights or remedies not exercised within a specified time should cease to exist. In State of M.P. v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654, the Supreme Court observed that the notion that merit in a case justifies disregarding a period of delay is preposterous. Regardless of a case's merit, the limitation period can bar its consideration, potentially excluding even strong cases. However, this does not negate the court's jurisdiction to condone delay in appropriate circumstances. In Bappanand Narshimman Annu Vs. Hirmanidevi G.S. Gupta & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2605, the National Commission observed that in accordance with the broad principles established by numerous decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the term 'sufficient cause' cannot be interpreted liberally when negligence, inaction, or lack of bonafides are attributable to the party seeking such discretion. Emphasizing the importance of applying the statutory period of limitation rigorously, the Commission observed that unlimited leniency in time limits fosters uncertainty.

5. The reasons for delay stated in the IA No. 671 of 2025 and those adduced during the hearing are not found convincing. Delay in getting copies of documents is not a valid reason. Festivals last for few days and such long delays cannot be justified on account of festivals. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Appellant has not given cogent reasons for delay in filing the FA. The Appellant after being aware of the impugned order, acted in a negligent manner and has failed to explain the sufficient cause of delay. Accordingly, IA No. 671 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, First Appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation.

4

6. Registry of NCDRC is directed to send a copy of this order (free certified copy) to both sides, in particular the Respondent(s), on the address given in the Memo of Parties, within a maximum period of one week from the date of this order.

7. All other pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed off.

..................

DR. INDER JIT SINGH

PRESIDING MEMBER

..................J

JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

MEMBER

5