9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Delay in filing appeals, condonation of delay, diligence of the appellants, legal intricacies, steps taken by the appellants to file appeals in time. Analysis: The case involved multiple miscellaneous applications seeking condonation of delay ranging from 6 to 62 days in filing appeals. The appellants claimed that the delay occurred due to the Consultant misplacing the appeal papers, resulting in the appeals being filed after the expiry of the three-month limitation period. The Consultant admitted the lapse but failed to demonstrate any steps taken by the appellants to ensure timely filing. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions highlighting the importance of appellants ensuring timely filing and the lack of evidence of such efforts in this case. The Respondent, opposing the condonation, argued that as a Private Limited Company, the appellants were aware of the filing deadline and failed to show any proactive measures to ensure timely filing by the Consultant. The Respondent distinguished previous cases where delay was condoned based on specific circumstances, emphasizing the appellants' responsibility to oversee the filing process. Reference was made to earlier Tribunal orders reinforcing the need for evidence of appellant diligence in pursuing timely filing. Upon considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the appellants did not take reasonable steps to ensure timely filing. The Tribunal noted the dates of receiving orders, handing over papers to the Consultant, and reminders sent by the appellants, all occurring after the expiry of the limitation period. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized the appellant's duty to pursue the Advocate for timely filing and rejected the appellants' claims of diligence in filing the appeals within the limitation period. The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to explain each day's delay in filing the appeals after the limitation period, as required by law. The lack of evidence showing reasons for delay, coupled with the Consultant's failure to demonstrate any valid excuse for the delay, led to the rejection of the condonation of delay requests. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the miscellaneous applications for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of stay petitions and all appeals filed by the appellants due to the delays not being condoned.
|
