9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 1192 - AT - CustomsCondonation of delay - Held that - applicant has filed a Writ Petition before the Hon ble High Court of Bombay on 10-9-2009, which was disposed off on 19-4-2010 and the order was received on 5-5-2010, the said period is to be deducted from the period for filing the appeal and for rest of the period, the applicant had fallen ill, we find that the reason for delay is not convincing to this Bench when the remedy was available to the appellant to file appeal before this Tribunal but under what circumstances, they filed Writ Petition in the Hon ble High Court. The applicant has failed to explain the reason as to why they have filed Writ Petition before the Hon ble High Court - Condonation of delay denied.
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal.
In this case, the appellant filed an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, citing the illness of a key person involved in the case as the reason for the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant claimed that the concerned person, who was well acquainted with the facts of the case, was bedridden due to a slip disc from the date the appeal was to be filed until a later date. Supporting medical evidence in the form of a certificate issued by a surgeon was provided to substantiate this claim. Subsequently, a Writ Petition was filed before the High Court, which caused further delay in filing the appeal. The appellant argued that the delay was neither intentional nor mala fide, and therefore, requested for condonation of the delay. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal considered the submissions made by the appellant's counsel regarding the timeline of events leading to the delay. The Tribunal noted that the period during which the Writ Petition was pending before the High Court should be deducted from the total delay period. However, the Tribunal found the reasons provided for filing the Writ Petition instead of directly appealing to the Tribunal to be unconvincing. The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to adequately explain why they opted for the Writ Petition route instead of directly appealing to the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not satisfactorily justify the reasons for the delay and dismissed the application for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as well.
|
