POWER TO CONDONE DELAY [Part I]
The High court of Judicature at Bombay while deciding the Central Excise Appeal [LODGING] No.114 OF 2OO8 on 29/08/2008 in re: COMMISSIONER OF C.EXCISE, PUNE II vs SHRUTI COLORANTS LTD observed as follows:-
“Expiration of the period of limitation as a necessary corollary given rise to a right in favour of the beneficiary of the order. This right attains higher dimensions and greater projection when the provisions relating to such an appeal do not permit condonation in the event the remedy is invoked after the prescribed period. When the language of the provision under the special Act giving inherent power to the Court to condone the delay and intent of the Legislature is clear to exclude recourse to general provision, the Courts would hardly have any power to condone the delay on general principles or by recourse to inherent powers that may be vested in the Court by its very constitution.
Limitation even in common parlance has been explained as the Act of Limitation, the state of being limited a restriction and a statutory period after which a law suit or prosecution cannot be brought in the Court of Law. No system of administration of justice permits or grants delay as a matter of right. On the contrary, Maxim LEX REPROBATE MORAM is the precept to governance of law. The provisions under the general or a special statute which provides for act and occassions to be taken with a specified period are based upon the maxim OMNES ACTIONES IN UNDO INFRA CETRA TEMPORA HABENT LIMITATIONEM. As already noticed, the limitation, particularly in special statute is subjected to reasonable or strict construction as may be bar of limitation causes hardship as delays in law are odious. The period of limitation once starts from terminus a qua, it does not stop, may be the party in default, is entitled to exclusion or condonation if specifically so contemplated under the provisions of the relevant law. It is expected of every litigant to be vigilant and mindful of their rights. Another point of view which supports strict interpretation is of law of limitation is that the remedy and relief both could be declined on the ground of laches, that is, where a party could invoke the remedy but there is unreasonable delay in pursuing the right to claim, the course of equity even there the court would decline to grant a relief to the applicant. Laches, thus, are capable of prejudicing and existing legal right. (Referred in Blacks Law Dictionary, 8th Edition). [contd.]