9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 1157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law carefully. The review petition has been filed with the submission that the Adjudication Order was passed ex parte. The petitioner received ex parte Adjudication Order dated 31-5-1996 from the office of Deputy Director of Enforcement, Mumbai on 10-10-2001. The covering letter as well as on the last page of the order the date of signature is clearly mentioned as 10th August, 2001 by the Enforcement Officer. The copy of the order is enclosed as Annexure P-l on record. The appellant did not receive the Show Cause Notice dated 15-2-1996 nor the notice of adjudication hearing dated 8-4-1996 and 6-5-1996 as mentioned in the order dated 31-5-1996. The entire proceedings were conducted ex parte and in violation of principle of natural justice. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Kailash Pandey vehemently argued that order dated 1-6-2010 was ex parte and not maintainable. However, from perusal of record, it is apparent that the impugned order dated 1-6-2010 was passed by this Tribunal after considering the pros and cons of the case on the point of delay in filing the appeal which was about 4 years. Petitioner did not disclose even the date of receipt of Adjudication Order in the application for condonation for delay which was one of the mandatory requirement. The said date was communicated by the petitioner by his affidavit dated 6-4-2009. However, the date was disclosed in an arbitrary manner deliberately concealing the manner in which the appellant came to know about the Adjudication Order and the date on wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant was under an obligation to mention the reason which stopped him to pursue his matter for four months and not before that. It is argued that the service report of Adjudication Order was summoned from the department. But after hearing Shri Jagat Singh, Advocate for the department and going through the record ample material was found against the appellant confirming the delay on his part of four years in filing the appeal for which no justification was given. Thus, the submission of ld. Advocate about service report is not acceptable. The appellant has not been able to give sufficient justification for not making any enquiry about his appeal within time and the petition has been filed after inordinate delay which is liable to be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the contents of former order. In M/s. U.P.R.S.T.C. v. lmtiaz Hussain - JT 2005 (10) S.C. 496 Hon ble Supreme Court held as follows :- The basis of the provision under Section 15 of the Code is founded on the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit i.e. an act of court shall prejudice no man. The maxim is founded upon justice and good sense and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law , said Cresswell J. in Freeman v. Tranah (12 C.B. 406). An unintentional mistake of the court which may prejudice the cause of any parLy must and alone could be rectified. In Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa (AIR 1966 S.C. 1047) it was observed that the arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation, a cleri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
