9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. The application is for condonation of delay on the exact period of which has apparently not been ascertained. 2. Advocate for the applicant says that the order impugned in the appeal was received by the applicant on 28-3-1996. Therefore the appeal should have been filed on or before 29-6-1996. The appeal was actually filed in the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whom it was sent on 23rd of July. The appeal was thereafter filed in Delhi on a date which has not been ascertained. It was returned by the registry at Delhi to the Delhi firm of Advocates on 28th August, 1996. Subsequently appeal was filed in Bombay on 3rd October. 4. Even if we assume that the delay is to be reckoned upto the date of filing the appeal in Delhi, and further assuming taking this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is not even an attempt to explain the delay we do not find it possible to condone it only on a general ground that this was caused by inadvertence. If we were to agree with this, it would follow that any amount of delay could be condoned on the ground of inadvertence. We are not aware of any judicial decision which approves this course of action. On the contrary, the Supreme Court has held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
