9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned counsel for the applicant why the ex-employee had not filed affidavit. It was stated that he was a part time employee and now having left the service was not traceable. Mrs. Jaya Patel, the director of the company states that she came to know about the Tribunal's order on 30.5.2018. It is also stated, as noted earlier, that the new employee Mr. Naidu was the first one to to tumble upon the order lying in the drawer of the previous employee. The applicant has filed affidavit of said Mr. Naidu who states that he had found the order of the Tribunal on 8.8.2018 and showed the same to Mrs. Jaya Patel who was surprised to see it as she was not shown the same earlier. We also notice that on 26.10.2016 when the Tribunal heard the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n: 6. I say that the impugned order has come to my knowledge on or about 30th May 2018 even though the Impugned Order dated 30.11.2016 was received by our office staff member on 17.1.2017 and an Appeal ought to have been filed within 120 days i.e by 17.5.2017 (impugned order dated 30.11.2016. A copy of the envelop containing the impugned order from the Income Tax Department is annexed as Exhibit- B . However, unfortunately, this Impugned Order was kept away in the office drawer of an Ex-employee Mr. Yogendra Damania, who was a part time employee and who appears to have received the Impugned Order and but forgot to show it to the Management and kept it in his drawer. It was only about one month ago that a new employee Mr. Prabhu who was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... occasioned due to the reasons beyond the control of the applicant. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 to contend that in the matter of delay, the Court should adopt a liberal approach. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and having perused the documents on record, we do not find that the applicant has appropriately explained the delay which is of 507 days. We are not insisting on the applicant explaining each day of delay. Nevertheless when the delay is substantial, at least a proper explanation for the bulk of the period should be necessary. In the present case, principally, the explanation of the applicant, as noted above is that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
