9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to enforce the liability as against the appellant. This shows that apparently the financial difficulty of the Company was a matter within the knowledge of the Department also. Therefore, when there cannot be any dispute with regard to the sufficiency of the reasons and when there is ample power for the Tribunal to restore the appeal, merely because there happened to be a delay of 16 years, the application should not have been rejected. The delay has been explained in detail in Annexure I. The Company which was functioning from 1888 went into red sometime in early 1990’s and now the appellant herein has entered into a MOU with the State Government also and it has revived its affairs. - Appeal restored. - C.E. Appeal No. 8 of 2014 - - - Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssal of the appeal and the writ petition also did not go in favour of the appellant and finally the writ appeal was also dismissed as evident from Annexure D judgment dated 24-9-2002. The order under challenge therein was only the final one dismissing the appeal. 5. Following are the relevant facts giving a picture of the affairs of the Company in paragraph 5 of the appeal memorandum : The company was established in the year 1888 as a joint stock company registered under the Travancore Companies Regulation Act. It is averred that during the period in question the entire property of the appellant came under Court Receiver s Custody pursuant to loan recovery proceedings by the ICICI Bank. Over 1000 employees were employed there directly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I is the application submitted before the Tribunal for restoration of the appeal. The apparent view taken by the Tribunal is that the delay being of 16 years, there is no reason to restore the appeal. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the facts explained by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal will show that the Company was being under Court Receiver for a long time from 1993 to 2010. The affairs of the Company has been revived by the present management and various payments have been effected. It is submitted that Section 35C of the Act confers wide power to restore the appeal and the appeal happened to be dismissed only because the pre-deposit was not made. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire amount ordered was not paid and the appeal was dismissed. 11. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant is well justified in relying upon the said judgment. 11. We have considered the rival submissions. We are of the view that when there cannot be any dispute regarding the financial constraints of the appellant, that resulted in the inability of the appellant to make the deposit, the question is only whether the reasons pointed out by the appellant in seeking restoration are justified or not. It is informed by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that during the entire period the department has also not taken any step to enforce the liability as against the appellant. This shows that apparently the financial difficulty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
