9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustice R.M.S. Khandeparker, President (Oral)]. Heard. 2. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these application they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3 These are applications for condonation of delay of 86 days for filing appeals. When the matter came up for hearing on 1-5-2009 as the applications did not disclose any fact which could reveal sufficient cause for condonation of delay, at the request of the learned Advocate for the appellant time was granted to do the needful in that regard. Today when the matter was called out, the written submission were filed along with a copy of the order dated 17-9-08 passed in Appeal No. E/2150/06 and E/378/07. The learned Advocate submits th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same also do not disclose as to when and how the copy of the impugned order for the purpose of preparing the appeal was obtained during the period of delay of 86 days. In short, apart from mere allegation that there was misplacement of file by the counsel for the appellants, there is not a single fact as such disclosed in the applications for condonation of delay so as to consider the same by applying test for sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 6. As regards the written submissions, it is settled law that in order to enable the party to establish a fact relevant for the matter in issue, the appellants have to produce the necessary evidence in that regard. Normally, in miscellaneous matters, such evidence is produced in the form o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of delay of 86 days. 8. In the written submissions, it is stated as under- That the appellant received the impugned order dated 15-9-2008 on 23-9-2008 and after two-three weeks informed the counsel of the appellant about the said impugned order. That the counsel of the appellant told him to bring the case file for filing the statutory appeal against the said impugned order. That however, the appellant could not send the case file to the counsel until date of 20-12-2008. That thereafter, on or about 3/4th Jan. 2009, the counsel drafted the appeal in consultation with the appellant which took some time and already the matter was delayed. That however, after perusing the case file it has been found that the original impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 86 days was on account of misplacement of file is not only contrary to the written submissions but is totally incorrect. 10. The written submissions further disclose that even after it was informed to the appellants by their counsel on 29-1-2009 that there was a delay in filing appeal due to misplacement of case file and that therefore, another set of case file with original copy of the impugned order would be necessary, the appellants did not bother to contact the advocate till 8-2-2009 and it was only thereafter on 17-3-2009 the present appeals came to be filed. It further discloses that from 8-2-2009, there was no case of any misplacement of appeal file as such but it was a clear case of carelessness on the part of the appellants a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
