9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (8) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order was received by the applicants on 10-7-1991 and the appeal was filed on 21-8-1991 which was well within time. But, however, he said that certified copy of the order dated 9-8-1990 issued on 22-2-1991 was received by their clearing Agents and in turn they sent the same under letter of cover dated 9-7-1991. If the date of issue, i.e., 22-2-1991 is taken as the date of receipt of the order there is a delay in filing the appeal and that delay has to be condoned since appellants were not at fault in causing such delay. He said that the applicants were all along diligent since they were pursuing the matter with the Adjudicating Authority to have a copy of the order even before the date of issue and as soon as they received copy from thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... draft appeal to the applicant. 2-8-1991 Draft appeal received by applicant from the Advocate. 5-8-1991 3/5-8-1991 draft appeal examined and requested our Advocate on 5-8-1991 for the meeting, who advised that he would be available on 9-8-1991 because in the intervening period he was busy in some other legal assignments. 9-8-1991 Visited Bombay to meet the Advocate but due to the sudden demise of the mother of the Advocate the meeting was postponed. 14-8-1991 Discussed draft of appeal with the Advocate on the telephone who advised that the revised draft shall be sent soon. 15-8-1991 Holiday-Independence Day 16-8-1991 Advocate sent revised draft of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le opposing the application submitted that the order in question was duly received by the Agents on 22-7-1991 and he placed a copy of the Note Sheet on the file of the Adjudicating Authority to show that two copies were handed over to the Agent. He said that since the Clearing Agents have accepted their lapse on their part, the application is liable to be rejected as the reason for such inordinate delay was not properly explained and Principal is bound by the act of the Agent as the action of the Agent is the action of the Principal. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rampal Others v. Rewa Coalfield, reported in AIR 1962 SC 361 wherein it was held that after the expiry of the limitation the respondent acquires ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act makes it clear that order s copy can be served on the person whom it is intended or to his Agent. Further we are not convinced with the argument of the appellants Counsel that principles governed by law of Agency are not applicable. It is nothing but relationship of Principal and Agent in this case and Principles of law of Agency are clearly applicable. One who acts through other is binding himself (Qui facit per alium facit per se) unless contrary intention is proved. Since Agent was authorised to receive the copy of the order and on receipt of the same neglected to send to the Principal at the earliest is a clear case of laches and the Principal has to pay price for it since he is bound by the action and omission of such Agent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as evident from the attested copy of the order filed by the applicant. There is, however, no mention at all to the copy directly sent by the Custom House to the appellant in their application. In the normal course the orders are issued Registered A.D. (as indicated in this case also) and allowing for the normal time taken by such post, the appellants would have received their direct copy on or about sometime in the first or second week of March 1991. However, surprisingly, the appellants have themselves treated the date of issue as date of communication and counted the normal period of limitation from that date and as mentioned in paragraph-6 of their petition that the last date for filing the appeal would be 22-5-1991. In the face of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
