P.Satheesh Prabu vs The Tamilnadu Public Service ... on 22 December, 2023
This Court in Basawaraj v. LAO [Basawaraj v. LAO,
(2013) 14 SCC 81] considered this issue and held as under :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (2.67 seconds)Nisha Gautam vs M/O Railways on 26 September, 2025
This Court
in Basawaraj v. LAO [Basawaraj v. LAO, (2013) 14
SCC 81] considered this issue and held as under :
Amber Kachchap vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 September, 2025
This Court
in Basawaraj v. LAO [Basawaraj v. LAO, (2013) 14 SCC 81]
considered this issue and held as under: (SCC p. 85, para 8)
'8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the
Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or
fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in
other cases. The said provision does not envisage
Page 9 of 17
2025:JHHC:30356-DB
negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if
some other similarly situated persons have been
granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake,
such an order does not confer any legal right on others
to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in
an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a
trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and
therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a
negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has
been committed in favour of an individual or a group of
individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a
judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of
the higher or superior court for repeating or
multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for
passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong
order/decision in favour of any particular party does
not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis
of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14
cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make
functioning of administration impossible.
(Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh [Chandigarh
Admn.
M/S Deepak Cables (India) Ltd vs Karnataka Power Transmission Ltd on 10 October, 2023
NC: 2023:KHC:36791-DB
MFA No. 1177 of 2019
claims. This Court, in Basawaraj v. LAO [Basawaraj
v. LAO, has held : (SCC pp. 85-88, paras 9-15)
"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which the
defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The
meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or
"enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer
the purpose intended. Therefore, the word
"sufficient" embraces no more than that which
provides a platitude, which when the act done
suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the
facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly
examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable
standard of a cautious man. In this context,
"sufficient cause" means that the party should not
have acted in a negligent manner or there was a
want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and
circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that
the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained
inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of
each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the
court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason
that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has
to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must
satisfy the court that he was prevented by any
"sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and
unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the
court should not allow the application for
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 vs Accession Buildwell Private Limited on 21 February, 2024
is not elastic enough to cover long delays beyond the period
provided by the appeal provision itself. Besides, the expression
"sufficient cause" is not itself a loose panacea for the ill of
pressing negligent and stale claims. This Court,
in Basawaraj v. LAO [Basawaraj v. LAO, (2013) 14 SCC 81] ,
has held : (SCC pp. 85-88, paras 9-15)
This is a digitally signed order.
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 vs Casio India Company Pvt. Ltd on 15 May, 2024
"58. Given the object sought to be achieved under both the
Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, that is, the speedy
resolution of disputes, the expression "sufficient cause" is not
elastic enough to cover long delays beyond the period provided by
the appeal provision itself. Besides, the expression "sufficient
cause" is not itself a loose panacea for the ill of pressing negligent
and stale claims. This Court, in Basawaraj v. LAO [Basawaraj
v. LAO, (2013) 14 SCC 81] , has held : (SCC pp. 85-88, paras 9-
State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs M/S Prayag Electric Company And Another on 3 October, 2024
58. Given the object sought to be achieved under both the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, that is, the speedy resolution of disputes, the expression "sufficient cause" is not elastic enough to cover long delays beyond the period provided by the appeal provision itself. Besides, the expression "sufficient cause" is not itself a loose panacea for the ill of pressing negligent and stale claims. This Court, in Basawaraj v. LAO [Basawaraj v. LAO, (2013) 14 SCC 81] , has held : (SCC pp. 85-88, paras 9-15)
"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose.
From Complete Trial Court Record) Kori ... vs Kaira District Cooperative Milk ... on 9 January, 2025
""58. Given the object sought to be achieved under both the
Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, that is, the speedy
resolution of disputes, the expression "sufficient cause" is not
elastic enough to cover long delays beyond the period provided by
the appeal provision itself. Besides, the expression "sufficient
cause" is not itself a loose panacea for the ill of pressing negligent
and stale claims. This Court, in Basawaraj v. LAO [Basawaraj
v. LAO, (2013) 14 SCC 81] , has held : (SCC pp. 85-88, paras 9-
Strix Ltd vs Maharaja Appliances Limited on 11 February, 2025
58. Given the object sought to be achieved under both the Arbitration
Act and the Commercial Courts Act, that is, the speedy resolution of
disputes, the expression "sufficient cause" is not elastic enough to
cover long delays beyond the period provided by the appeal provision
itself. Besides, the expression "sufficient cause" is not itself a loose
panacea for the ill of pressing negligent and stale claims. This Court,
in Basawaraj v. LAO [Basawaraj v. LAO, (2013) 14 SCC 81] , has held :
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Shri Uttam Agarwal on 23 September, 2024
58. Given the object sought to be achieved under both the
Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, that is, the speedy
resolution of disputes, the expression "sufficient cause" is not is not
period provided by the appeal provision itself.. the expression
"sufficient cause" itself a loose panacea for the ill of pressing
negligent and stale claims. This Court, in Basawaraj v. LAO
[Basawaraj v. LAO, has held (SCC pp. 85-88, paras 9-15)
"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant could
not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word
"sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be
necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word
11 / 16
"sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a
platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the
purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a
case, duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable
standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause"