9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal") whereby, the application made by the applicant seeking condonation of the delay caused in preferring the appeal has been turned down, and the stay application as well as the appeal have also been dismissed. 2. Mr. D.K Trivedi, learned advocate for the appellant invited attention to the application for condonation of the delay made by the appellant before the Tribunal to submit that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay of 221 days in preferring the appeal. It was submitted that the appellant had entered into a contract with M/s Indian Rayon, Veraval for carrying out the work of replacing old and worn out motor pumps, compressive pump etc. with new ones and building and replacing platform for installing mach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns made by the respective parties as well as to the facts of the case, this court is of the view that the appeal merits consideration. Hence, Admit. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not condoning the delay caused in preferring the appeal?" 5. The facts are not in dispute. Against the order-in-appeal dated 11th January, 2013 made by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Tribunal; however, there was a delay of 221 days in preferring the said appeal and hence, the appellant also move an application seeking condonation of the delay caused in preferring the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the reasoning which has been putforth is unconvincing for the reason that before the first appellate authority, the appellant had preferred appeal in time and had prosecuted the same. The Tribunal further took note of the fact that the appellant was represented by a Chartered Accountant there and found the explanation given by the appellant to be unacceptable and dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently, also dismissed the stay application as well as the appeal. This in sum and substance forms the reasoning given by the Tribunal. 7. As is apparent from the facts noted hereinabove, the appellant had preferred the appeal before the Tribunal after a delay of 221 days. The reason given for such delay as stated in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roper application of mind to the facts of the case on the part of the Tribunal. Moreover, from the averments made in the application, it appears that the appellant had, at no point of time, given up the cause nor does it appear as if there was any gross negligence or laches on the part of the appellant in prosecuting the appeal. It is by now well settled that the court while considering an application for condonation of delay should adopt a pragmatic approach which furthers the cause of justice and not a narrow or pedantic approach. In the present case, the delay in preferring the appeal is not so huge so as to cause any undue prejudice to the respondent. Under the circumstances, if the delay is condoned, the only consequence would be that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
