9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned as 15th August, 1988. Simultaneously an application for Condonation of Delay was also filed. Shri Gopal Prasad, the learned consultant who has appeared on behalf of the applicant has reiterated the contentions made in application for Condonation of Delay. He has made a request for adjournment for substantiating his arguments for condonation of delay. Shri A.S.R. Nair, the learned SDR has opposed the request for condonation of delay. After hearing both sides, the Bench had pointed out to Shri Gopal Prasad, the learned Consultant the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Union of India and Others v. Visveswaraya Iron and Steel Ltd. -1987 (32) E.L.T. 458 where it was held that But we do not see why any further time should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Departmental Representative has opposed the Condonation of delay and stated that in view of the earlier judgment of the Tribunal, the applicant s request for condonation of delay may be rejected. 4. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Limited -1988 (38) E.L.T. 739 has held that filing of appeal after expiry of limitation on account of movements of papers is not sufficient cause. In the present matter before us the only plea of the applicant is on account of leave of one of the officer who was dealing with the file. The applicant has not taken care even in mentioning of the name of the officer who was dealing with the file and there is also no confirmation in the form of affidavit from the officer co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant. It cannot justify an enquiry as to why the party was sitting idle during all the time available to it. Considerations of bona fides or due diligence are always material and relevant when the Court is dealing with applications made under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. In dealing with such applications the Court is called upon to consider the effect of the combined provisions of Sections 5 and 14. Therefore, considerations which have been expressly made material and relevant by the provisions of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
