9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seven days in filing the Appeal filed by the respondents under Section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1989 ('SICA for short). The Appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik on 2-2-2007 against the order dated 5-12-2006 passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR' for short) sanctioning a Scheme of Rehabilitation under SICA. 2. Section 25 of the SICA reads thus : "Section 25(1) : Any person aggrieved by an order of the Board made under this Act may, within 45 days from the date on which the copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority, provided that the Appellate Authority may entertain any appeal after the said period of 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed at Nashik Commissionerate on 2-1-2007. Till the receipt of order in the Nashik Commissionerate i.e. the applicant was not aware of the order of the BIFR and therefore the appeal could not be filed within 45 days from the date of issue of the order. It is clear that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within 45 days from the date of issue of order". 5. The petitioners filed their reply opposing the application seeking condonation of delay. By an order dated 23-3-2007, the AAIFR condoned the delay without considering the objections raised by the petitioners. 6. On a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners, a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 16-9-2008 set aside the order dated 23-3-2007 and directe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copy of the order of BIFR on 13-12-2006, and authenticated copy of the order of BIFR on 2-1-2007. However, the AAIFR, by accepting the contention of the petitioners held that 12-12-2006 i.e. the date on which the Aurangabad Commissionerate received the authenticated copy of the order of BIFR dated 5-12-2006 would be the relevant date for computing the limitation. Thus, receiving notarized copy of the order on 13-12-2006 and authenticated copy of 2-1-2007 loses significance once 12-12-2006 is considered to be the relevant date for computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal. 9. As per Section 25 of SICA, appeal against order of BIFR had to be filed within 45 days from receiving the order on 12-12-2006, that is, on or befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above reason apart from being incorrect, does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay, because, even if the authenticated copy was received on 2-1-2007, why the appeal could not be filed on or before 26-1-2007 ought to have been set out in the application seeking condonation of delay. 13. Failure to set out reasons for the delay in the application seeking condonation of delay shows complete callousness and dereliction of duty on the part of the Officer who had affirmed the application seeking condonation of delay. It is high time that appropriate action is taken against such officers who perform their duties casually and without application of mind. 14. For the first time before this Court in reply to the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing condonation of delay does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay, in view of the material now brought on record, we uphold the order of AAIFR in condoning the delay of seven days in filing the appeal. 17. Strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon reported in (2008) 17 Supreme Court Cases 448. In that case, acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act for the benefit of Jalgaon Medium Project culminated into an award on 31-3-1999. Reference application filed by the owners of the land against the award was disposed off on 9-3-2000 by enhancing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra 12, 37 and 38 of the said judgment. As held by the Apex Court in para-37 of the said judgment, the decisive factor in condonation of delay, is not the length of delay, but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation. Applying the above ratio to the facts of the present case, it becomes clear that the facts now brought on record constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 19. In the result, we hold that the inaccurate statement contained in the application seeking condonation of delay did not amount to showing sufficient cause and the AAIFR was not justified in condoning the delay without considering the inaccurate statement contained in the application seeking condonation of delay. However, on the basis of the material now p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
