Dismissed¶26

Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited v. Rajan Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Jun 2025CRMPM/1229/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 304 days' delay in filing criminal appeal; sufficient cause; each day's delay to be explained; company/juristic person cannot plead negligence of its employees; authorised representative left job without informing company; unexplained one-year gap; certified copy of judgment; Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. v. Rajan Kumar; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Rakesh Kainthla, J.; 16.06.2025; Cr. MP(M) No. 1229 of 2025 in Cr.AST No. 6621 of 2024; application dismissed; proposed appeal disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Each day's delay in filing an appeal has to be explained. ¶25

Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited Vs Rajan Kumar — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 304 days in filing the appeal (Cr.AST No. 6621 of 2024) ought to be condoned, i.e., whether sufficient cause for the delay was shown. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Each day's delay in filing an appeal has to be explained.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

A company, being a juristic person that acts through its employees, cannot take shelter behind the negligence of its employees to claim condonation of delay.

¶25

Key takeaways

It is not explained how the Company came into possession of the certified copy if Mohit Singh Kang had not informed the Company about the passing of the judgment.ratio¶20
There is no explanation why the newly appointed authorised representative made no inquiries from the Company's counsel about the pendency of the Company's cases or checked the record handed over to him; the gap of around one year before filing the application is unexplained.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous application (Cr. MP(M) No. 1229 of 2025) by Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. for condonation of 304 days' delay in filing appeal (Cr.AST No. 6621 of 2024) against the judgment dismissing its complaint — Held: (i) each day's delay has to be explained; (ii) a company, though a juristic person acting through its employees, cannot take shelter behind the negligence of its employees to claim condonation of delay; (iii) no explanation was offered as to how the Company possessed the certified copy if the departed authorised representative (Mohit Singh Kang, who left in July 2023) had not informed it, why the newly appointed representative made no inquiries from the Company's counsel or checked the handed-over record, or for the gap of about one year (July 2023 to July 2024) before filing the application — sufficient cause not shown; application dismissed and, consequently, the proposed appeal stands disposed of. (Rakesh Kainthla, J.; decided 16.6.2025; not approved for reporting.)

¶1

2025:HHC:18163

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MP(M) No. 1229 of 2025 in Cr.AST No. 6621 of 2024 Reserved on: 29.5.2025 Date of Decision: 16.6.2025.

¶4

Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. ...Petitioner Versus Rajan Kumar ...Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No. For the applicant/apellant : Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate.

¶7

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶8

Cr. MP(M) No. 1229 of 2025

¶9

This order shall dispose of an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It has been asserted that the certified copy of the judgment was applied by learned counsel on 27.5.2023, which was delivered on 22.6.2023. Learned counsel sent the certified copy along with the complete record to Mohit Singh Kang, authorised representative of the appellant-

¶10

Company, on 24.6.2023. However, Mohit Singh Kang did not

¶11

¶12

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶13

¶14

2025:HHC:18163

¶15

send the certified copy to the higher authorities. He left the job in July 2023. The newly appointed authorised representative came to know about the dismissal of the complaint on 26.6.2024. He informed the Zonal Manager regarding the passing of the judgment and sent a copy to the Zonal Office, Mohali, for further action. The copy was received on 30.6.2024, and it was sent to the registered office in Chennai. The approval was received on 15.7.2024, and the appeal was prepared on 20.7.2024. The delay of 304 days in the filing of the appeal was bona fide and due to the circumstances beyond the control of the applicant/appellant. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

¶16

I have heard Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, who submitted that the delay was bona fide because the Company was not informed by Mohit Singh Kang, and he left the job in July 2023. The Company acts through its employees and cannot be held liable for the negligence of its employees. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

¶17

¶18

2025:HHC:18163

¶19

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶20

A perusal of the certified copy of the judgment attached to the appeal shows that the application was filed on 9.6.2023 and the copy was delivered on 22.6.2023. As per the appellant, this copy was supplied to Mohit Singh Kang, who had not informed the higher officials. It is not explained how the Company came into possession of the certified copy if Mohit Singh Kang had not informed the Company about the passing of judgment.

¶21

The application further shows that Mohit Singh Kang left the Company in July 2023. The newly appointed authorised representative found that the complaint was dismissed on 26.6.2024 when he was checking the old record. There is no explanation why the newly appointed authorised representative had not made inquiries from the learned counsel for the Company about the pendency of the cases instituted by the Company. He was supposed to check the record to know about the status of the cases filed by the Company after the record was handed over to him by Mohit Singh Kang; however, there is no mention in the application that any such step was taken. The

¶22

¶23

2025:HHC:18163

¶24

present application was filed in July 2024 after the lapse of one year of leaving the office by Mohit Singh Kang and there is no explanation for this gap of around one year.

¶25

It is trite to say that each day’s delay has to be explained. It is true that the Company, being a juristic person, acts through its employees; however, it cannot take shelter behind the negligence of the employees to claim the condonation of delay.

¶26

Therefore, the applicant/appellant failed to show any cause, much less sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. Hence, the present application fails, and the same is dismissed.

¶27

Cr.AST No. 6621 of 2024

¶28

In view of dismissal of application for condonation of delay, the proposed appeal also stands disposed of.

¶29

( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶30

16^th June, 2025

¶31

(Chander)

Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited v. Rajan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited v. Rajan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Amrish Rana Vs State of Hp

Balinder Vs the Mahalaxmi Cooperative Credit Society Ltd.

Abhishek Rana Vs State of Hp

Jagdish Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Raj Kumar Vs State