9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .09.2013 and thereafter, no date was fixed for pronouncement of the judgment. The record further shows that the notice as required under Section 82(2) of the Act alongwith the copy of the award was served on the petitioners only on 03.03.2014 and the appeal came to be filed within a month thereof i.e. on 02.04.2014. The impugned order dated 18.12.2015 is hereby set aside - petition allowed. - Writ Petition No. 505 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 28-6-2016 - C.V. Bhadang, J. For the Appellant : Thalmann Pradeep Pereira, Advocate. For the Respondents : P. Chawdikar, Advocate. JUDGMENT C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l settlement of the said dues. The petitioners sought to challenge the same before the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal, by filing an appeal, in which subsequently, an application for condonation of delay was filed as the office of the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal raised an objection that the appeal was barred by limitation. The petitioners contended that they had not received any notice, as recorded in the impugned order. 4. The Co-operative Appellate Tribunal by the impugned order has found that the notice was served on the petitioner no. 1 and the notice addressed to the petitioner no. 2 was returned unclaimed and thus, there was no reason shown for not filing the appeal in time. The Co-operative Appellate Tribunal found that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order sheet of the proceedings before the Registrar's Nominee, to show that the last date in the matter was on 21.09.2013, when the matter was closed for judgment and there was no fixed date given for pronouncement of the judgment. 6. On the contrary, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the petitioners came with a case of non receipt of the notice, when the postal acknowledgment and the envelope (copies of which are annexed to the petition) clearly show that, they were served with the notice of the proceedings. It is submitted that it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners that they were not aware of the proceedings before the Registrar's Nominee. He submits that the Co-operative Appellate Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
