9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e receipt of this order had not been complied with. 2. The contentions of the common representatives of the applicant are these. The Tribunal's stay order was not delivered to one of the two addresses given in the appeal for service in the notice. No doubt a copy of the order was received at the office of Mr. S.J. Vyas, Advocate of the applicant. However, a copy of the order was not sent to the applicant nor was its receipt communicated to them by their advocate or its office. The applicants only came to know of the Tribunal's order when they received the order in May 2000 dismissing the appeal for default. On account of their financial difficulty, each of them made the deposit in instalments, the deposit being completed in December 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice or intimation to the applicant that if they did not deposit the amount required in the specified period, the appeal would be dismissed. 4. It must be noted that even if all these contentions are accepted, and there has still been a default. The order dismissing the appeal for default was received in May. Surely they communicated the advocate. The representative of the applicants accepts that amounts came to be paid by them because, on receipt of this order they contacted their advocate and obtained from him a copy of the stay order. Mr. Vyas says that to the best of his recollection the copy of the order was given to them sometime in June. Each of the applicants made the first payment of Rs. 50,000/-, less than 10% of the amount, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be confined to the facts of the case. While it is easy enough to invoke the interests of justice, we must keep in mind that justice has to be delivered to both parties, the Department and the appellant. Again, granting this application, would in effect mean that an applicant can choose to deposit whenever he likes them disregarding the direction that is given with regarding the time to deposit. In this case, the applicant has taken 10 months. Tomorrow, another applicant may take five years. We are unable to perceive the difference between ten months, five years or ten years. We think that it would be fair to say that the Tribunal should be liberal in condoning such delay if it can be concluded that despite bona fide efforts of the applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
