9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (10) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng before the Tribunal on 19th July, 1988 and the learned S.D.R. had made a request for adjournment on the ground that he wanted to substantiate his grounds for condonation of delay. In the interests of justice an adjournment was granted though it was opposed by the other party. The matter had come up for hearing today. The learned J.D.R. stated that he has not received any information from the Collector in this regard in spite of the fact that a telex was sent on 19th July, 1988. He again requested for adjournment. Shri Ravinder Narain opposed the request for adjournment and in support of his arguments he referred to a judgment in the case of Union of India v. Visveswaraya Iron Steel Ltd. reported in 1987(32) ELT 458 where the Court had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same was not followed. Shri Ravinder Narain in support of his arguments has also referred to an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal v. Rewa Coal Field reported in AIR 1962(SC) 361. Shri Ravinder Narain has argued that in view of the judgments cited by him the application for condonation of delay should be rejected as the applicant has not been able to prove that he was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. In Mst. Katiji Bibi s case the observation of the Supreme Court was that Every day s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour s delay, every second s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter to enable the department to file the petition was not a sufficient cause. Operative portion of the judgment is reproduced below: - From 26[-12-1986 to 10-2-1987 and from 6-3-1987 to 24-3-1987 there is no cogent and possible explanation. It may be mentioned that the special leave petition was actually filed on 23-3-1987. There is no whisper to explain what legal problems in filing the special leave petition arose". It appears to us that no attempt has been made to explain this delay. In that view of the matter we gave further opportunity to the petitioners to file additional affidavit explaining the cause, if any, for this delay. It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit on behalf of the Responda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
