9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure-B dated 28.02.2019 passed by respondent No.2 was confirmed by respondent No.1-Appellate Authority. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned CGC for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. The material on record discloses that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner was contested and the same culminated in the impugned order in original dated 28.02.2019 passed by respondent No.2, which was received by the petitioner on 13.03.2019. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal on 14.11.2019 before respondent No.1-Appellate Authority along with an application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. By the impugned order dated 02.03.2021, respondent No.1-Appellate Authority declined t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner, who has slept over his rights for more than six months and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/S. LAXMI ELECTRONIC MOULDS & PRECISION ENGINGEERING PRIVATE LTD., V/S. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [W.P.No.53511/2018, D.D., ON 23.09.2021]. 6. A perusal of the material on record, in particular, the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.1-Appellate Authority as well as the grounds urged in the Memorandum of Appeal as well as in the present petition will indicate that it is the specific contention of the petitioner that the impugned order in original dated 28.02.2019 passed by respondent No.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n application seeking condonation of delay. 7. The aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly establish that the petitioner had made out valid and sufficient ground/cause to condone the delay in preferring the appeal before the appellate Authority. It is also clear that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to prefer the appeal within the prescribed period was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. Though it is well settled that Respondent No.1-Appellate Authority does not have power to condone the delay beyond the extended/condonable period of 30 days after expiry of the initial period of 60 days, by adopting justice oriented approach and in order to do complete and substantial justice, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the Advocates Welfare Fund, Bengaluru, within a period of eight weeks from today. ii) The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 02.03.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 is hereby quashed and the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal by the petitioner before respondent No.1 is hereby allowed and the delay in preferring the appeal stands condoned. iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for re-consideration afresh in accordance with law, without reference to the issue/question regarding condonation of delay and/or limitation in preferring the appeal which stands concluded in favour of the petitioner by virtue of this order. i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
