9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gursharan Singh and Others vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors. [1996 (2) TMI 540 - SUPREME COURT]. The Appellate Authority acting under the said Act, acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. On account of an error which is committed by a quasi-judicial authority, and which according to the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant, was assured to be corrected by him, but however not corrected by him, a prejudice cannot be permitted to be caused to a litigant who was acting bonafide - petitioners have made out a case of sufficient cause and as such, have made out a case for condonation of delay. However, the same shall be subject to costs which are quantified at ₹ 10,000 - Decided part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereby seeking leave to partially withdraw the grounds of appeal in relation to which the petitioner had got administrative relief. However, it appears that vide the order dated 20.6.2000, all the appeals of the assess for various periods were clubbed by the Appellate Authority with the appeals for Assessment Year 1992-93 and thereby dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. It is the contention of the petitioners that they were under an impression that the appeal is only partly disposed off and the appeal still remains pending before the first Appellate Authority insofar as the part of the claim about which no relief was granted is concerned. It is the contention of the petitioners that only on 1.4.2010, i.e. after receipt of the demand fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances, the Second Appeal and the application, as aforesaid, came to be filed. 5. Smt. Badheka learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay and, consequently, dismissing the Second Appeal. She submits that merely because there is delay of around nine years, could not have been a ground for dismissing the application. The learned counsel submits that what is required to be seen while considering the application for condonation of delay, is as to whether a case for sufficient cause for not filing he appeal was made out by a party or not. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners had already filed on record an affidavit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r condonation of delay. What is required to be seen is as to whether a party seeking condonation of delay has made out a sufficient cause or not . The Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji Ors. 1987 Vol.66 STC 228 , has also held that while considering as to whether a sufficient cause is made or not the Courts should take a liberal view of the matter. 8. In this background, let us consider the present case. 9. Undisputably, after the assessment order was passed by the original Authority on 19.2.1998, First Appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the First Appellate Authority. It can also be seen that when the administrative relief order was passed on 27.1.2000, a part of the cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has also stated in the affidavit that his wife was suffering from multiple serious health problem since last so many years. She was required to undergo almost 12 surgeries. He has further stated that when a demand was made by the Respondent-Authority in 2007, in reply thereto, it was categorically stated that the appeal is still pending. He further stated that after the reply was sent, there was no further communication for the period of almost three years and after three years in 2010, another demand was issued. It is stated that at this point of time, the petitioners realized that there was something which required immediate action and as such upon consulting a lawyer, it was decided to file Second Appeal along with an application for co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an appeal along with application for condonation of delay is filed. As already discussed hereinabove, length of delay is not relevant. What is relevant is as to whether a party has made out a case of sufficient cause or not. The letter requesting withdrawal categorically states withdrawal of the appeal is only for a claim in respect of which the administrative relief has been given to the petitioner. No doubt that the order disposing of the appeal states that Appeal has been withdrawn in toto. However, Shri Kothari categorically stated in his affidavit that he had brought the errors to the notice of the Appellate Authority and it assured to do so necessary correction. His bonafide belief that the necessary correction would be made is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
