9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod. There is no other provision in the Code by which the limitation can be extended. It is an admitted fact that the appeal has been filed much beyond the period of 30 plus 15 days. It is needless to mention that the period of 30 days is statutorily provided to a party who intends to file an appeal but the period of 15 days is left at the discretion of the Appellate Authority which has to look into the adequacy of sufficient cause before extending the period of another 15 days. In no case the limitation can be extended beyond the period of 45 days. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, especially in view of the fact that despite having the knowledge on 02.01.2020 the certified copy was applied on 31.01.2020 the Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the lis before the Adjudicating Authority and secondly, they came to know about the order dated 12.12.2019 only on 02.01.2020 when they noticed the same on the website of the Adjudicating Authority. It is submitted that the certified copy of the impugned order dated 12.12.2019 was applied on 31.01.2020 and thus a delay of 29 days has been caused in filing of the present appeal. On the other hand, Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has vehemently argued that the reason assigned by the Appellant does not inspire any confidence because it has not been mentioned in the application as to when the order of the Adjudicating Authority was uploaded and as to why the certified copy was applied on 31.01.2020 even after noticing the order on 02.01.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the limitation can be extended beyond the period of 45 days. Now the question is as to whether the limitation is to be counted from the date of passing of the order or from the date of the knowledge of the party. In this regard, the issue is no more res-integra, in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V Nagarajan (Supra) and Safire Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). Counsel for the Appellant has failed to cite any judgment to the contrary for the assistance of the Tribunal to take the view different from the Judgments relied upon by Counsel for the Respondent. Counsel for the Respondent has also pointed out, during the course of hearing, that the promoter had been participating in all the proceedings and was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
