National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S Teraccon Projects Land Developers ... vs Aravamudam. T. K. on 30 October, 2025
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1823/2024
(Against the Order dated 19th December 2022 in Appeal A/771/2018 of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission Karnataka)
M/S TERRACON PROJECTS LAND DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
S. V. BABU
PRESENT ADDRESS - NO. 20, 2ND FLOOR, , BENGALURU, , LANGFORD ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR, , BENGALURU RURAL,KARNATAKA.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
M.R. MUNIRATHNA
PRESENT ADDRESS - NO. 81, SAMRUDDI NILAYA 3RD CROSS, , KANAKPURA ROAD, , 2ND
MAIN, BALAJI LAYOT VAJRAHALLI, , , BENGALURU RURAL,KARNATAKA.
.......Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1824/2024
(Against the Order dated 19th December 2022 in Appeal A/773/2018 of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission Karnataka)
M/S TERRACON PROJECTS LAND DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROPRIETOR S. V. BABU
PRESENT ADDRESS - NO. 20, 2ND FLOOR, LANGFORD ROAD, , BENGALURU RURAL ,
SHANTHINAGAR, , BENGALURU RURAL,KARNATAKA.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
SMT. VIJAYA MADHAVI M.
PRESENT ADDRESS - R/A NO. 501, 37TH BLOCK, CPWD QUARTERS, HSR LAYOUT, ,
BENGALURU RURAL,KARNATAKA.
.......Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1825/2024
(Against the Order dated 19th December 2022 in Appeal A/774/2018 of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission Karnataka)
M/S TERRACON PROJECTS LAND DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROPRIETOR S. V. BABU
PRESENT ADDRESS - NO.20, 2ND FLOOR, LANGFORD ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, ,
BENGALURU RURAL,KARNATAKA.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
SRI MURAHARI SATYA BABU
PRESENT ADDRESS - 7TH FLOOR E AND W WING, KENDRIYA SADAN, KORAMANGALA, ,
BENGALURU RURAL,KARNATAKA.
.......Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1828/2024
(Against the Order dated 19th December 2022 in Appeal A/775/2018 of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission Karnataka)
M/S. TERRACON PROJECTS LAND DEVELOPERS REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR S.V. BABU
PRESENT ADDRESS - NO. 20, 2ND FLOOR, LANGFORD ROAD,SHANTHINAGAR, ,
BENGALURU RURAL,KARNATAKA.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
SRI BONTHU LAZAR
PRESENT ADDRESS - NO. 641, BLOCK NO.43 CPWD QUARTERS, HSR LAYOUT, ,
BENGALURU RURAL,KARNATAKA.
.......Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1827/2024
(Against the Order dated 19th December 2022 in Appeal A/772/2018 of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission Karnataka)
M/S TERACCON PROJECTS LAND DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROPRIETOR S.V. BABU
PRESENT ADDRESS - NO. 20, 2ND FLOOR, LANGFORD ROAD SHANTHINAGAR, ,
BENGALURU RURAL,KARNATAKA.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
ARAVAMUDAM. T. K.
PRESENT ADDRESS - R/A NO. 9, BLOCK NO.4, KHB COLONY , JAYANAGAR, , LALBAGH
SIDDAPUR, , BENGALURU RURAL,KARNATAKA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA , MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER:
MR. RYAN SINGH, ADVOCATE
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
MS. DIVYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE (RP/1823 & 1827/2024) MR. SHIVAM BAJAJ,
ADVOCATE MR. AKASH TANDON, ADVOCATE MS. BHAVYA RANI, ADVOCATE
(RP/1824,1825 & 1828/2024)
DATED: 30/10/2025
ORDER
JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT
1. These revision petitions have been filed with delays of approximately 435 days. The delay condonation applications were taken up on 15.07.2025, when the following orders were passed:
"IA/9992-9994, 10001 & 10002/2024 These Applications have been filed for condoning the delay in filing of the Petitions. In paragraph No.-4 of the Applications for condonation of delay the following averments have been made:
"4. That since, the date of the order dated 27.02.2024, the Petitioner has been trying earnestly to settle the matter under the consideration in present Revision Petition with the Respondent, however, the Respondent has not evinced any interest to settle the matter despite the fact that the Petitioner is willing to refund the entire amount along with reasonable rate of interest, as such the Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Hon'ble Commission albeit with some delay on account of the settlement as attempted by the Petitioner."
This undertaking for refund has been given in the wake of the arguments advanced that the Revisionist is not in a position to execute the sale deed as per the decree of the District Commission and as affirmed by the State Commission. The contention is that there is a dispute with regard to the title of the land and sanction of the plan, and the same is an impediment in complying with the directions issued by the District Commission and the State Commission. Therefore this aspect needs to be looked into as the Impugned Order to that extent suffers from a material irregularity. Learned Counsel submits that these aspects had to be taken into account before proceeding to award a decree.
From a perusal of the Order of the State Commission this issue seems to have been raised on the basis that a Writ Petition filed before the Karnataka High Court where an Order was passed regarding the identity of the land. The State Commission has however recorded that since the identity of the land as alleged by the Petitioner therein does not affect the lay out in the present case, therefore the order of the District Commission is affirmed. Learned Counsel submits that this finding is not correct inasmuch as without waiting for any final orders of the High Court the Revisionists cannot be compelled to convey a title which if otherwise is in jeopardy. It is for this reason that the Revisionists had made an offer for refund of the entire amount together with interest.
This argument has to be weighed in the background that the sale agreement has not been denied by the Revisionists. They had undertaken in their Written Version as well to convey the final sale deed. Consequently the question of refund would not arise if the land is available and the sale deed can be executed. Issue notice on these Applications calling upon the Respondents to file their objections if any to the same by the next date fixed.
To entertain the aforesaid arguments prima facie at this stage we direct the Revisionists not to create any 3rd Party rights on the land in question or dispense with it in any manner whatsoever during the pendency of these revisions. To balance equities in so far as the Complainants/ Respondents are concerned, taking note of the undertaking given in Paragraph No.-4 of the delay condonation applications as noted above, we further direct the Revisionists to deposit the entire amounts received from the Complainants /Respondents together with 9% interest before the State Commission within one month from today. The said amount deposited shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit with some Nationalized Bank by the State Commission in an interest bearing deposit and shall be permitted to be released or withdrawn subject to any orders passed by this Commission in these Revisions.
The aforesaid interim Orders are being passed on a prima facie consideration of the arguments advanced and is subject to any final orders to be passed on the delay condonation Application.
In case the Revisionists comply with the direction herein above further executions proceedings shall remain stayed.
List on 18.12.2024."
2. A perusal of the said order would indicate the nature of the dispute as well, but in short it would be appropriate to point out that an agreement to Sale for the plots was entered into between the petitioner and respondents on 25.05.2012. These sites are part of a lay out plan of a project developed by the petitioners titled Sai Residency III situate at Indlabele Village, Attibele, Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru situate over survey no. 205, 206, 172 and
217. The entire area on which the said project was developed is 11 acres 20 guntas. It is mentioned in the agreement to sale, a copy whereof has been filed as annexure-C, that the property is under approval procedures.
3. It appears that same approval was granted on 16.12.2014. By the said approval order it also appears that survey no. 201 (old survey no. 173) in the same village was also subjected to an approval.
4. One of the purchasers in respect of said survey no. 201 filed writ petition no. 7487/2015 before he Karnataka High Court, challenging the order of the approval dated 16.12.2014. However, from a perusal of the order passed by the High Court dated 27.02.2024, a copy whereof has been brought on record as annexure P-9, demonstrates that the dispute in the said writ petition was confined only with regard to the grievance in relation to two acres of land that was subject matter of dispute, as the land that was sold had some issues of prohibition of transfer. There were orders passed by the Revenue Authorities which were also discussed in the judgment. While proceeding to deal with the matter, the High Court also noticed that the proprietor of the petitioners, Mr. S. V. Babu was arrayed as respondent no. 3 in the said writ petition. It was also noticed that Mr. Babu had filed writ petition no. 11241/2023, challenging a notice dated 17.02.2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, in respect of that property, but the said writ petition was disposed off on 02.08.2023, observing that the petition was premature. It appears that since the challenge raised was only to a show cause notice, the writ petition was not even entertained.
5. However, the plea taken by Mr. Babu was that he has already filed a response to the said notice which matter is still pending and therefore the order of approval dated 16.12.2014 should not be interfered with. The High Court categorically recorded in paragraph 8 that interference with the order dated 16.12.2014 was not warranted at that stage. It was also observed that the issue relating to the said show cause notice will have to be considered in respect of the petitioner therein together with 21 sites purchased relating to the "subject property". The entire order of the High Court is extracted herein under:
"The petitioner, who has purchased the land measuring 1 acre in Sy. No.201, old Sy. No.173 of Indlabele Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru [the subject property], has impugned the first respondent's order dated 16.12.2014 [Annexure-E]. The first respondent, by this order dated 16.12.2014, has accorded approval for formation of a layout in the subject property as also the adjacent lands. The land in Sy. No.201 comprises not just the subject property but also an additional one acre. This Court, before referring to the petitioner's grievance, must record the circumstances leading to the petition and certain subsequent events.
2. The land measuring 2 acres [including the subject property] in Sy. No.201, [Old Sy. No.173] of Indlabele Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru is granted to Smt. Sanjeevi @ Sanjeevamma way back in the year 1936-37 and she has sold this land in Sy. No.201 to Smt. Muddamma under the sale deed dated 03.06.1954. Smt. Muddamma's successors-ininterest have transferred one acre each in this larger extent to the petitioner and another Sri K. Sudhakar Reddy. If Sri K Sudhakar Reddy has purchased one acre of this land under the sale deed dated 20.07.1992, the petitioner has purchased the subject property under the sale deed dated 14.09.1995.
3. The legal heirs of the original grantee, Smt. Sanjeevi @ Smt. Sanjeevamma have commenced the proceedings in K.SC.ST.[A].13/2012-13 with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978 [for short, 'the PTCL Act']. The Assistant Commissioner has set aside the afore transfers including the transfer in favour of petitioner under the sale deed dated 14.09.1995. The petitioner has called in question the Assistant Commissioner's order in the proceedings in K.SC.ST.Appeal.[A] No.95/2013-14 under Section 5A of the PTCL Act.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, entertaining this appeal, has granted interim order in the month of January 2015 staying the Assistant Commissioner's order, but in the meanwhile the legal representatives of the original grantee Smt. Sanjeevi @ Smt. Sanjeevamma have entered into registered transaction releasing all their interest in favour of the third respondent, who has submitted the necessary application to the first respondent for grant of approval for a layout proposed in the subject property and the different adjacent lands. As part of the process for the decision to grant approval, a relinquishment deed is also executed in the month of December 2014 in favour of the State Government releasing that part of the area within the subject property which is earmarked for roads, open spaces and parks.
5. The Deputy Commissioner has allowed the petitioner's appeal in K.SC.ST.Appeal.[A] No.95/2013-14 on 23.04.2022, and again before this order, the first respondent has sanctioned khata for the sites formed in the entire layout including the subject property. The tentative submissions placed on record at this stage are that 21 sites have been formed in Sy. No.201, [Old Sy. No.173] of Indlabele Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru and khatas are issued therefor with the third respondent transferring these sites in favour of third-party purchasers.
6. This Court must record that at this stage that Sri. Yogesh D Naik, the learned counsel for the first and fourth respondents, submits that whether these 21 sites are within the subject property or within the total extent of two acres in Sy. No.201 will have to be verified. Further, the learned counsel also submits that the first respondent is no longer the Planning Authority for the lands that are approved in the year 2014 as the concerned lands are within the jurisdiction of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent, upon receiving information about the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 23.04.2022 in K.SC.ST.Appeal.[A] No.95/2013-14, has issued notice dated 17.02.2023 to the third respondent [the promoter and others]. The third respondent has called in question this notice dated 17.02.2023 in W.P. No.11241/2023 which is disposed of by order dated 02.08.2023 observing that the writ petition is premature.
7. Sri Yogesh D Naik defending not just the grant of approval on 16.12.2014 but also the subsequent action states that the process of sanction was completed even before interim orders granted at the petitioner's instance by the Deputy Commissioner. However, the question for consideration in the present proceedings is whether this Court must quash the first respondent's order dated 16.12.2014 according approval for the layout in the subject property and the adjacent lands when the consideration of the response to the notice dated 17.02.2023 is pending.
8. This Court must opine that quashing this order dated 16.12.2014 would not be warranted at this stage when the fourth respondent, upon being informed about the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 23.04.2022 has issued notice dated 17.02.2023 to the third respondent in exercise of powers conferred under Section 76-O of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. The fourth respondent will have to consider all circumstances and take appropriate decision but with opportunity even to the petitioner and those persons who have purchased 21 sites [or such other sites as would correspond to the subject property]. Any order in the present proceedings or by the fourth respondent without notice to the persons as aforesaid would not pass muster in law.
9. Hence, the petition must be disposed of with necessary directions and liberties and one of the directions to the fourth respondent-competent authority, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, must be necessarily to explore the possibilities of the petitioner burying the hatchet with the third parties who have acquired interest in the subject property in the circumstances stated above. In the light of the afore, the following:
ORDER [a] The petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation with the fourth respondent within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
[b] The fourth respondent, upon receipt of such representation, shall extend an opportunity to the petitioner and the third parties who have acquired interest in the subject property in the circumstances stated above and take appropriate decision considering all the circumstances strictly in accordance with law.
[c] The fourth respondent, before concluding the proceedings as aforesaid, shall make every reasonable endeavour to bring about a settlement between the petitioner and the third parties as aforesaid."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the said proceedings involve the same approval and consequently there is a legal impediment in proceeding to comply with the impugned order of the District Commission for execution of the sale deeds in favour of the respondents. The submission is that both the fora below have completely overlooked this aspect of the matter which is still engaging the attention of the authorities and now the High Court has also made observations in that regard as quoted hereinabove.
7. As noted above in the order dated 15.07.2024, the delay condonation applications had to be considered in the light of the aforesaid contentions raised and we had accordingly issued notices, whereafter the respondents are represented through their lawyers and appeared on 18.12.2024, when the following order was passed:
"Dr. Akash Tandon, learned counsel, has already appeared on behalf of the respondents in RP No. 1824, 1825 and 1826 of 2024.
Mr. Nikhil Swami, learned counsel, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents in RP NO. 1823 and 1827 of 2024. He prays for some time to file Vakalatnama and also seeks an adjournment to assist the Bench.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is present online.
Let this bunch be listed on 08.05.2025."
8. The case was again adjourned and opportunity was given to the learned counsel for the respondent to file their reply to the delay condonation application on 08.05.2025. The order is extracted herein under:
"The delay condonation Applications have been listed today.
It is stated that replies and objections to these delay condonation Applications have been filed in all the Petitions. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he is in receipt of two replies in two Revision Petitions but he expresses his inability to locate the other replies which he submits that it seem to have been served by mail and have not been responded till date.
He is granted further three weeks' time to respond to the delay condonation applications after serving the replies to the learned Counsel for the Respondents.
List on 18.09.2025."
9. The respondents pointed out that the interim order for the deposit as directed vide order dated 15.07.2024 had not been complied with by the petitioners. Accordingly we passed the following order on 18.09.2025:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties. Vide order dated 15.07.2024 the petitioners were required to deposit the entire decretal amount with 9% interest. The office report indicates that there is no proof of deposit on record. Mr. Ryan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will be producing the evidence with regard to the deposit as he has instructions that the deposit has been made. Let proof of deposit be filed before the next date of fixed.
List on 07.10.2025 as agreed."
10. A proof of deposit was filed along with e-receipts on 26.09.2025 that was objected to by the learned counsel for the respondents, whereafter the following order was passed on 07.10.2025:
"We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and we do not find full compliance of the order dated 15.07.2024. Learned counsel has brought on record the proof of deposit of the amounts referred to in the receipts that have been appended along with the proof of deposit. However, learned counsel for the respondents have pointed out that the said amount is neither the full and complete principal amount nor is it accompanied by 9% interest.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the calculations have not been given by the respondents. We make it clear that the calculations have to be made by the petitioner himself of the amount received from the respondents and also the 9% interest as indicated in the order dated 18.09.2025. There should be no confusion about the calculation and the petitioner is required to deposit the said amount as per the orders of this Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he will comply with the orders within one week.
Let the matter be listed after one week for directions on 15.10.2025. In the event the directions are not complied with, the interim order shall stands discharged without reference to the Bench.
The rate of interest of 9% shall be simple rate of interest per annum from the date of each respective deposit till the date of actual deposit as directed above. List for directions on 15.10.2025.
Order dasti."
11. Learned counsel for the respondents has informed that certain deposits have already been made in compliance of the said order, but the petitioners are checking the account books and calculations to find out the deficit and deposit the same accordingly.
12. We are not inclined to adjourn the matter on this count as we find that the issues raised in all these petitions require an early disposal.
13. The entire contest to the impugned orders in these revision petitions broadly is on the ground that the decrees passed by the fora below cannot be executed as the petitioners are not in a position to convey the sale deeds due to the legal impediments regarding the approval of the plan and for that they have heavily relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court extracted hereinabove.
14. We have perused the impugned orders, where it has been categorically held that there is no such legal impediment more so when it is alleged that the petitioners have already executed other sale deeds in the same project.
15. It is further pointed out that the High Court matter that has been pleaded by the petitioners has no concern as both the projects and plot numbers are different, even if there has been an approval order in relation to other plots as well. It is urged that there is no overlapping or any impediment on account of the proceedings before the High Court or the order passed by it.
16. We have considered the submissions relating thereto and we find that the order of the High Court nowhere relates to the subject matter of the properties/ plots presently involved in this project consisting of plot nos. 205, 206, 172 and 217. There is therefore no legal impediment on account of the order of the High Court which is in respect of Plot No. 201.
17. Coming to the issue of delay of 435 days, we find that paragraph 4 of the delay condonation application, which has already been quoted by us in the order dated 15.07.2024, makes a request which is no explanation in the real sense.
18. Apart from this, there is no other explanation, explaining the delay. The delay has not been explained either sufficiently or with any cogent reasons. Thus, we do not find any plausible ground to condone the delay in the filing of the revision petitions. The reason given is only an excuse and not an explanation as held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Satish Chand Shivhare & Bros. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2151. The explanation given was the usual administrative rigmarole and then the Court considered the other judgments on the issue relating to sufficient cause to hold that it should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, provided there is no lack of bonafides.
19. It is undoubtedly true that the law of limitation has a harsh effect if applied strictly but at the same time, Courts and Tribunals should not ignore the explanation given. However, the Court further went on to observe that when a matter on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim, due to delay, then the delay deserves to be condoned. Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
"21. The questions of law purported to be raised in this Special Leave Petition are misconceived. The right of appeal is a statutory right, subject to the laws of limitation. The law of limitation is valid substantive law, which extinguishes the right to sue, and/or the right to appeal. Once an appeal is found to be barred by limitation, there can be no question of any obligation of the Court to consider the merits of the case of the Appellant.
22. When consideration of an appeal on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim on the technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay. The Court considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. However, in this case, the Petitioners failed to make out a strong prima facie case for appeal. Furthermore, a liberal approach, may adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Liberal approach does not mean that an appeal should be allowed even if the cause for delay shown is glimsy. The Court should not waive limitation for all practical purposes by condoning inordinate delay caused by a tardy lackadaisical negligent manner of functioning."
20. The Apex Court once again had the occasion to deal with a delay condonation application in a contest of land acquisition where the delay of around 479 days had been condoned in favour of the Union of India. The aggrieved persons came up to challenge the same and after consideration of the entire law on the subject, the Court in the case of Sheo Raj Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2023) 10 SCC 531, analyzed the approach that has been explained in paragraphs 30 to 32 as follows:
"30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate 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 length of delay being immaterial.
31. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an "explanation" and an "excuse". An "explanation" is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must, however, be taken to distinguish an "explanation" from an "excuse". Although people tend to see "explanation" and "excuse" as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real.
32. An "excuse" is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an "excuse" would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication."
21. In our opinion, an excuse is to free oneself from some blame or seek pardon or any apology but as enunciated by the Apex Court, it can be a pretended reason, and therefore it should be distinguished carefully from a bonafide and genuine explanation. An explanation brings transparency or makes things look plain and simplified signifying truthfulness as against something bewildering or confusing. It tends to give a clear meaning to the underlying motive of the expression.
22. Subsequently, in the case of Mool Chandra Vs. Union of India & Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1878 the Apex Court held that the length of delay may not be that material if the cause of delay is sufficiently explained. The observations of the Apex Court in paragraph 20 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
"20. Be that as it may. On account of liberty having been granted to the appellant to pursue his remedy in accordance with law, yet another O.A. No. 2066 of 2020 along with an application for condonation of delay came to be filed. The delay was not condoned by the Tribunal on the ground that it was filed more than one year after the impugned order came to be passed. No litigant stands to benefit in approaching the courts belatedly. It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of "sufficient cause", irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned."
23. Applying the principles as enunciated therein we neither find there to be any merit in the contentions or any reason for condoning the delay. Thus, all the revision petitions deserve to be rejected and are accordingly consigned.
24. The amounts deposited under the interim orders passed by this Commission shall be transmitted by this Commission to the Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shanthinagar, Bangalore for being retained by it and shall be released upon the compliance of the orders passed by the fora below, upon proof of the same being submitted before the District Commission.
25. All the five revision petitions are therefore dismissed with the above directions.
..................J A. P. SAHI PRESIDENT ..................
BHARATKUMAR PANDYA MEMBER