9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals against Adjudication Order imposing penalties for contravention of FER Act provisions. Analysis: The appeals were filed after 363 days from the receipt of the adjudication order, exceeding the statutory 45-day period. The appellants sought condonation of delay citing family problems and financial constraints. The law requires a "sufficient cause" for condonation, defined as adequate reason to accomplish the intended purpose. The main grounds presented were the death of the father and illness of the mother, supported by medical certificates. However, the illness period did not align with the delay duration, raising doubts on the cause's sufficiency. Financial constraints were also claimed, but the posh residence of the appellants contradicted the plea of incapacity to pay the court fee. The Tribunal found the explanations unconvincing, indicating untruthful conduct and lack of merit in the condonation application. 2. Legal principles on condonation of delay: The Tribunal referenced legal precedents emphasizing the elastic interpretation of "sufficient cause" to serve justice. The Supreme Court's stance highlighted that delay should not benefit any party, and substantial justice must prevail over technicalities. The Court stressed the need for a liberal approach in accepting explanations for delay, cautioning against rejecting petitions without due consideration. The balance between substantial justice and adherence to statutory limitations was underscored, emphasizing the importance of genuine reasons and avoiding routine condonations. 3. Dismissal of appeals and condonation application: Despite a considerate approach, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals and the condonation application. The excessive delay of 318 days was viewed as acquiescence and waiver, indicating indolent behavior by the appellants. The Tribunal rejected the grounds of family problems and financial constraints as insufficient to justify the delay. Emphasizing the significance of statutory limitation periods, the Tribunal concluded that the appeals lacked merit for delay condonation. The decision to reject the appeals was based on the excessive delay and the appellants' failure to provide substantial reasons for condonation.
|
