9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (5) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the respondent. The matter had come up for hearing before the Bench on 7.3.1986. At the outset of the hearing the Bench had pointed out to the learned advocate that in Column No. 3 of the Memorandum of Appeal, the date of service has been mentioned not known . To the Bench s query, the learned Advocate stated that the appellant had filed writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the writ petition was dismissed by the Hon. High Court vide Writ Petition No. 7590 of 1979, Order dated 16.12.85. The learned Advocate pleaded that as per direction of the Hon. High Court an appeal was to be filed in the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of Hon. High Court s order and the appeal was presented in the Registry on the last day of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin the time limit specified by the Hon ble High Court. That, in view of the above, it is respectfully prayed that the appeal shall be deemed to have been filed within time. Alternatively, the applicant prays that if it is construed that the appeal is beyond time, this Hon ble Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay, if any, in filing the appeal as the delay is bona fide and is not due to negligence of the applicant." 3. Shri M. Chandrasekharan, the learned Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the applicants. He has reiterated the contentions made in the application for condonation of delay. He has pleaded that the order in appeal No. 391/79 dated 20-8-1979 was passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs and was served on the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pradesh High Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd., Rajahmundry v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajahmundry reported in 1980 E.L.T. 210. He has pleaded that the case cited by him was a central excise matter and the writ petition number is 1603 of 1978 and the same was decided on 9.10.79 and the writ petition was filed by Shri K. Srinivasamurthy, Advocate for the petitioners, and the writ petition was allowed, and keeping in view the result of this writ petition, the appellant had filed the writ petition bonafidely, and the writ petition was decided by the Hon. High Court on 9-10-1979; and the appellant had filed its writ petition on 17-12-1979; and the applicant s Advocate was the same Shri K. Srinivasamurthy, who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to file the appeal within four weeks from the date of the order. He has referred to the provisions of Section 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act as to the term sufficient cause . Shri Tripathi, the learned SDR, has pleaded that in the matter before the Tribunal, there is no sufficient cause, and as such the applicant s request for condonation of delay should be rejected. 5. In reply, Shri M. Chandrasekharan, the learned Advocate, has pleaded for condonation of delay. 6. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we would like to observe that in the present matter the order in appeal was passed on 20-8-1979, and was received by the appellant on 28-9-1979, and the writ petition was filed on 17-12- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner may file the revision, or if the petitioner so chooses he may file the appeal before the appellate tribunal, within four weeks from today. Status-quo as on today to be continued for a period of four weeks. With the above directions the writ petition is dismissed. No costs." A mere glance at the operative part of the Hon. High Court s order shows that the intention of the Hon. High Court is that there is no delay in the filing of the appeal before the Tribunal and the Hon. High Court had further directed to maintain status quo for a period of four weeks. 7. The Hon. Madras High Court in the case of J.M. Bhansali Others v. The State of Madras reported in 1968 (21) Sales Tax Cases 411 had held that the delay in unsuccessf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elow:- Notwithstanding the fact that section 37 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, provides for limitation of sixty days from the date of the order of the Board of Revenue for preferring an appeal, the High Court can, by invoking section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, excuse the delay in filing the appeal provided it finds that there is sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time. Bona fide but unsuccessfully prosecuting a writ petition under article 226 against the order of the Board is a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. A simple perusal of the judgment of the Hon. Madras High Court reflects that the appellant must establish his bona fide. In the present matter before us, the appellant has filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
