9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt on 31.5.2012. Thereafter proceeded the normal saga of the file moving from one place to the other. The BTF is stated to have been issued on 26.6.2012. Documents required for filing appeal were furnished on 27.7.2012. The counsel kept on awaiting the copy and details of an SLP against the Division Bench Judgement of 28.5.2012 which was responded to by the department on 25.9.2012. Thereafter the file could not be located in the chamber of the counsel. A draft of the appeal is stated to have been sent finally on 06.11.2012. Then it was sent back duly signed. There is also a delay in refilling of 103 days which is stated to be on account of unavoidable reasons. The reason stated to be is that higher court fee was payable on account of Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of the modern technologies being used and available as the law of limitation undoubtedly binds all including the Government. In fact, the Supreme Court has put everyone to notice by stating that it is the right time to inform all Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there is bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch the application is permitted to be filed under Section 34 of the Said Act is three months plus an additional 30 days under Section 34(3) of the said Act. Thus, if the delay in refilling exceeds this period, then the scrutiny becomes more rigorous and there has to be a satisfactory and credible explanation for the delay otherwise, the legislative object of not permitting delayed objections from being filed gets defeated. We are conscious of the fact that in the present case we are dealing with the appeal as per provisions of Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 would apply. However this does not mean that what is not permissible at the first stage and seeks to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
