1982 (5) TMI 184 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order under Emergency Risks (Goods) Insurance Act, 1971 based on appeal timeline calculation.

The judgment pertains to a petition challenging an order under the Emergency Risks (Goods) Insurance Act, 1971. The petitioner lodged an appeal against the order within the prescribed time limit of 30 days. The appeal was dispatched on 14-3-1977 and received by the respondent on 15-3-1977. The respondent rejected the appeal on 13-4-1977, deeming it time-barred. The petitioner argued that the appeal should be considered lodged on the day it was sent, relying on legal precedents. The respondent did not contest the petitioner's claim that the appeal was dispatched on 14-3-1977. The court examined the timeline of appeal filing and the legal interpretation of the date of lodging an appeal by post.

The petitioner contended that the appeal should be deemed lodged on the day it was sent, i.e., 14-3-1977, and not on the day it was received by the respondent, i.e., 15-3-1977. Legal precedents were cited to support this argument, emphasizing that delays in postal transmission should not prejudice the party filing the appeal. The court referenced a Division Bench ruling from the High Court of Gujarat and a local court ruling to establish that the date of filing an appeal by post should be considered the day it was entrusted to the post office. The court agreed with the petitioner's argument and held that the appeal was filed within the stipulated time frame. Consequently, the court deemed the respondent's rejection of the appeal as time-barred to be illegal and ordered the appeal to be reinstated for further consideration on its merits.

The court also addressed the petitioner's argument regarding the absence of a specific time limit for filing an appeal within the statutory scheme. However, this issue became moot as the court had already determined that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period. The court, therefore, quashed the respondent's order, directing the appeal to be reinstated and adjudicated on its merits in accordance with the law. Additionally, the court made the rule absolute, but since the respondent did not contest the case, each party was directed to bear their own costs.