Dismissed

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. M/S.Sakthi Sugars Ltd.

Madras HC19 Apr 2023CMP/15240/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petition to condone a delay of 944 days in preferring a first appeal. The Court held that the delay was exorbitant and unexplained, finding the claims regarding counsel's death and covid-19 insufficient. Consequently, the appeal suit was rejected at the liaison stage without costs.

What did the court decide?

The miscellaneous petition to condone delay is dismissed, and the appeal suit is rejected at the lien stage.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CMP No.15240 of 2022 and AS.SR.No.24142 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.04.2023

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

¶5

CMP No.15240 of 2022 and AS.SR.No.24142 of 2021

¶6

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Registered Office at Bharat Bhavan 4 & 6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai, Regional Office at Irugur Top Installation, Ravathur Post, Irugur via. Coimbatore,

¶7

Rep. by its Regional Manager

¶8

.. Petitioner/Appellant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

M/s.Sakthi Sugars Limited, Race Course Road, Coimbatore, Rep. by its Deputy President (Taxation), P.Sankararaja Pandian.

¶11

Akhilandeswari Carbon Gas Private Limited 93, Idigarai, Coimbatore, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Mr.Prakash

¶12

.. Respondents/Respondents

¶13

Page No.1 / 5

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

CMP No.15240 of 2022 and AS.SR.No.24142 of 2021

¶16

Prayer in CMP.No.15240 of 2022: This petition has been filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 944 days in preferring the First Appeal in AS.SR.No.24142 of 2021.

¶17

Prayer in AS.SR.No.24142 of 2021: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2018 made in OS.No.5 of 2016 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.

¶18

For petitioner/appellant : Mr.John Joseph for Mr.O.S.Karthikeyan For respondents for R1 : Mr.KMC.Arunmokan for Mr.S.Sathyanarayanan

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.VAIDYANATHAN, J)

¶21

The miscellaneous petition has been filed to condone the delay of 944 days in preferring the appeal.

¶22

Page No.2 / 5

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

CMP No.15240 of 2022 and AS.SR.No.24142 of 2021

¶25

On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is seen that the petitioner is trying to project that the delay had occurred on account of Covid-19. The Covid situation started only in the year 2020. However, even before that there there is an exorbitant delay of 2 years. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, though the delay has been explained in a tabular column, the reason for causing such a huge delay has not been properly explained.

¶26

It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the original counsel had handed over the matter and passed away. However, there is no iota of evidence to show that steps were taken by the petitioner to condone the delay.

¶27

After detailed arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to engage another counsel to appear before this Court. However, we are not inclined to accept the request of the petitioner as the delay itself has not been properly explained. Further, the situation of

¶28

Page No.3 / 5

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

CMP No.15240 of 2022 and AS.SR.No.24142 of 2021

¶31

Covid-19 has no relevance to the case on hand as there is an exorbitant

¶32

delay even before the spread of Covid-19 and the delay has also not been properly explained. The Apex Court in the case of M/s.Ruskin Sea Foods Limited vs. M/s.Evergreen Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. reported in MANU/TN/0876/2018, has held that if delay is long and explained properly with reasons, the same can be considered; in case, the delay is short and reasons are not satisfactory, the Court can dismiss the same on the ground of laches. Hence, the miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal suit is rejected at the S.R. stage itself. No costs.

¶33

(S.V.N.J.,) (R.K.M.J.,) 19.04.2023

¶34

Speaking Order: Yes / No pvs

¶35

¶36