9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was not a case of urgency. Contention that the impugned order was never served upon the appellant is misconceived. According to the appellant they came to know of the order on 2nd June, 2018 and received the requisite documents which they applied on 4th July, 2018. The appeal could have been filed immediately thereafter but they did not do so and only filed after an inordinate delay of 316 days. In the additional affidavit no proof has been filed to show that the officer who was in charge had gone on leave or that the Company was in correspondence with the stock exchange throughout. In the absence of any documentary proof, the ground urged in the additional affidavit is devoid of any merit and is an afterthought. On a perusal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant on 4th July, 2018. It was also stated that the certified copy of the order was never served to the appellant and it was only given on 30th April, 2019 and thereafter the appeal was filed. It was also alleged that they are residing in Delhi and it took some time to find a specialized Advocate in Mumbai dealing in the securities market. In the additional affidavit filed by the appellant it was stated that the officer in charge went on leave in August and only came back in the end of September and, since then, the appellant was making correspondence with the stock exchanges and accordingly contended that the delay in filing the appeal has been sufficiently explained and that the delay should be condoned. 2. We have heard the learned cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons. In Ram Nath Sao @ Ram nath Sahu v. Gobardhan Sao [2002] 3 SCC 195 Supreme Court held that the expression 'sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party. 6. On a perusal of the affidavit we do not find any sufficient cause or plausible cause show by the appellant. The ground given by the appellant is patently vague and does not imply the presence of any legal and/or adequate reasons. No doubt the Tribunal is possessed with exercise of judicial discretion in condoning the delay after sufficient cause and/or adequate reason is given. In the instant case, we find that no bona fide reasons had been given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
