9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous Application for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition is therefore, dismissed. - MP-FE-01/KOL/2012, FPA-FE-75/KOL/2006 - - - Dated:- 22-3-2018 - Ms. Ananya Ray, Member For the Appellant : Shri Jaideep Tandan, Advocate Alongwith Shri Ashutosh Saha, ( in person ) For the Respondent : Ms. Aagam Kaur, Advocate JUDGEMENT MP-FE-01/KOL/2012 1. Vide order dated 21st May, 2009 the erstwhile Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange had dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of pre-deposit of penalty. They have filed a Review Petition on 20.12.2011requesting for recalling of the said order as well as condoning the delay in filing the Review Application. Brief facts are that the Appellate Tribunal vide its o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal order breaches the principles of natural justice in as much as it is an ex-parte order and no one from the appellant is present on the said date. (c) He relied on the following judgement: (i) Kamlesh Ishwarbhai Patel Vs. Union of India of Delhi High Court decided on 6th July, 2012. He referred to para 7 which relied on Thirumali Chemicals Ltd. Vs. UOI (2011) 6 SCC 739 wherein it was stated that the Tribunal can entertain the appeal after the prescribed period of 45 days if its satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the said period. (ii) High Court of Bombay decision dated 28.4.2015 Vinyl Chemical India Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra (writ petition no. 2774/2014) where it was held that what is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant has filed the condonation of delay in the same application in which they have filed the Review Petition. They have stated that they received the final order dated 21.05.2009 only on 14.12.2011 from the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate and immediately thereafter they filed the Review Petition. However they have submitted no facts, evidences or proof as to what happened on 14.12.2011. This appears to be a random date which is proved by their own letter dated 19.01.2011 addressed to the Registrar of the Appellate Tribunal signed by the appellant himself which reads as:- I have come to know from the Directorate of Enforcement Calcutta Office that my appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 21.05.2009. I have not re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led out are:- (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, nonpedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The term sufficient cause should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a sig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
