9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to the health condition of a company director. 2. Adequacy of reasons provided for the delay, including staff shortage and workload. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal Due to Health Condition: The primary contention for condonation of delay was the health condition of Shri Shankar Swamy, the remaining Director of the appellant company. The appeal was delayed by 41 days, which the appellant attributed to Shri Swamy's serious health issues. He underwent bypass surgery and was under medical treatment from 5th September to 8th October 1993, as evidenced by a medical certificate from Dr. Sharad Panday, a cardiovascular surgeon. The certificate indicated that Shri Swamy had "ST segment changes suggestive of Myocardial Ischemia," necessitating bed rest and restricted activity. Majority View (Condonation Allowed): The majority opinion, led by the Member (Judicial) and supported by the third Member (Judicial) on reference, emphasized a pragmatic and humanistic approach. They considered the serious ailment of Shri Swamy, his medical rest, and the subsequent state of health. The court noted that technical considerations should not impede substantial justice. The precedent from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of *Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji and Others* was cited to support a non-pedantic approach to condonation of delay. The learned SDR did not oppose the condonation, further supporting the decision to condone the delay and allow the appeal to proceed. 2. Adequacy of Reasons Provided for the Delay: The appellant also cited additional reasons for the delay, including the departure of another director and several technical and service personnel, which left Shri Swamy with the entire burden of the company's affairs. The company also faced multiple Show Cause Notices and had difficulty providing the necessary documents for the appeal due to staff shortages and workload. Dissenting View (Condonation Denied): The Member (Technical) disagreed with the majority, arguing that the reasons provided were insufficient. He noted that the draft appeal was ready by the first week of September 1993, and the appeal could have been filed soon after Shri Swamy resumed work on 15th October 1993. He emphasized that the law cannot await the convenience of the appellants and that they should arrange their affairs to comply with legal requirements. The medical certificate did not indicate any health setbacks after 15th October 1993, and there was no evidence of Shri Swamy's absence from office due to ill health post that date. The delay was thus attributed to negligence rather than bona fide reasons. Final Order: In view of the majority decision, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The papers were directed to be placed before the Regular Bench for necessary orders. Conclusion: The judgment highlights the balance between legal formalities and substantial justice, considering human factors like health issues. The majority opinion favored a lenient and pragmatic approach to condonation of delay, while the dissenting opinion stressed strict adherence to procedural timelines and adequacy of reasons. Ultimately, the delay was condoned, allowing the appeal to proceed.
|
