9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r : G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)]. Along with their appeal the appellants have also filed the captioned application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. 2. Arguing on the application, Shri Pradeep Jain, Learned Counsel submitted that the impugned order was communicated to the appellants on 23-8-1993 and the appeal was filed on 21-12-1993 and therefore the delay of 29 days (af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the different period. Reiterating the said statement, the Counsel submitted that the delay be condoned. No case law was cited by him though the bench asked for it. In reply, Shri Bhansali, SDR submitted that except the ipse dixit of the Advocate, there is no supporting evidence from the appellant. The application is vague. It is not known who on behalf of the appellants handed over the papers. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the counsel on 29-9-93. From the Vakalatnama on record said to have been executed in favour of learned Counsel Shri Pradeep Jain, we find that there is no date on it. Even the name of the person who has engaged the learned Advocate for and on behalf of the appellants is not mentioned. For ready reference a relevant portion of the Vakalatnama is extracted below :- Know all to whom these present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the only file said to have been misplaced. There is no supporting evidence either from the side of the appellants or from the office of the Counsel. Mere purchase of the draft of fees could hardly be a ground by itself for condonation of delay more particularly when ample time after the purchase of the said draft was available. Taking all these facts and circumstances as stated above we are of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
