1.       This first appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 11.10.2022 passed by State Commission Tamil Nadu in Complaint No. 16 of 2019.

2.       Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and have perused the record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 11.10.2022 of the State Commission, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the memo. of appeal.

3.       The present appeal has been filed with reported delay of 105 days whereas the self-admitted delay is 56 days.

4.       As the delay does not appear to be insignificant, learned counsel appearing for the appellants is being heard first on the delay condonation application in order to decide whether there is any good ground to condone the delay or not. 

5.       The submissions made by the learned counsel are no different from the grounds taken in the delay condonation application and they have been virtually repeated once again.

6.         It has been submitted that though impugned Order was passed on 11.10.2022  but the knowledge of the same was not acquired in time and it was only when the appellants received a letter from the counsel for the respondent on 15.12.2022 that it could acquire knowledge of the impugned Order.  Thereafter the papers were acquired and collected which took some time.  The certified copy of the impugned Order was received on 27.02.2023.  The lawyers were consulted and opinion was sought for filing the appeal.  The drafting also took some time. Submission is that if the period of limitation is counted from the date of the receipt of the certified copy the delay involved is of 56 days.  Submission is that as the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate the same may be condoned. 

7.       It may be observed that in the ordinary course the advisable approach to be adopted in such matters by a judicial or quasi-judicial Forum as the case may be, is to lean favourably towards the defaulting appellants who fail to file the appeal within the limitation period.  It is ordinarily preferred not to adopt a pedantic approach but to proceed with a pragmatic view and to decide the case on merits rather than to thwart the cause at the very threshold on the ground of limitation.  But while saying so Commission should not be understood to mean or to imply that the law of limitation wherever it is provided by the Act can either be blissfully ignored or be soft paddled at will.  Such kind of approach will entirety frustrate and defeat the very purpose which inspires the enactment of the law of limitation.  The statutory law regarding limitation, wherever it is provided has a salutary purpose to serve, and has to be respected and complied with.  In no case can any forum judicial or quasi-judicial can ride roughshod on the solemn provisions regarding the law which provides limitation period.  It goes without saying that when a particular order attains finality it simultaneously gives rise to a right to the other side and unless there is sufficient cause, which may justify the condonation of delay and satisfy the given Fora looking into the matter that there were actually justifiable reasons which go to explain as to why the appeal was not filed within the stipulated period of time, the Forum cannot act either whimsically or capriciously. The judicial discretion which even this Commission exercises in the matters of condonation of delay is not an exercise of some kind of privilege or prerogative, it is a judicial discretion and has to be exercised judiciously.  The availability of sufficient cause has to be seen in perspective of the conspicuous facts and circumstances of each case and the onus of showing such factual basis from which may emanate the convincing grounds to vindicate the delayed filing has to be discharged by the appellants who seek judicial indulgence in this regard. 

9.       When this Bench proceeds to evaluate the grounds pleaded in the delay condonation application in order to explain the delay it feels constrained to observe that they scarcely go to qualify for being called good grounds to earn condonation.  The plea raised about the belated acquisition of knowledge falls flat from the admission of the appellants themselves that they had received a letter from respondent along with the copy of the Order itself on 15.12.2022. This letter from the side of the respondent has also been filed and is available on record. In such circumstances it become an undisputed fact that the knowledge about the Order had been acquired on 15.12.2022 itself and the copy of the Order was also very well available with the appellants. The period of limitation to file an appeal under the old Act was 30 days only but the appeal has been filed only in the end of May i.e. on 24.05.2023 after many months. Even if we adopt an indulgent view and count the period of limitation as desired by the appellants then too it appears from the certified copy of the impugned Order that a free copy had been dispatched to the appellants on 09.01.2023 itself.  If we take the date of the supply of the free copy to be baselines, even on that reckoning the appeal has been filed with substantial delay.  The pleas regarding the consultation of lawyers, preparation of draft, taking legal opinions etc. do not go very far to help the appellants because they are the common routine exercises which have to be done whenever some appeal or petition has to be filed. That does not go to mean that the petitions or appeals should not be filed within the prescribed period of time laid down by law.  It may be observed that when we proceed to evaluate the sufficiency of cause shown for delayed filing the Bench adopts a pragmatic approach and makes necessary allowance keeping in perspective the institutional working of the companies and never adopts a pedantic approach but that does not go to imply that the law of limitation can ever be blissfully ignored in a manner which would reduce the period of limitation prescribed under the Act into a meaningless proposition. The delay involved here is not of weeks but of many months.        

     The Bench does not see even a semblance of an explanation which may constitute a good ground to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay is without worth or substance, sufficient cause to condone the delay is not at all forthcoming. As such the  Bench  has no hesitation in dismissing the application.

11.     Resultantly the appeal stands dismissed on limitation.

12.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the first appeal and to the learned counsel for the appellants. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.