9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r from preferring an appeal. Taking note of the stand taken by the petitioner it cannot be said that there was lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner in preferring the appeal. It is well-established that the one does not stand to gain by filing a belated appeal especially when the respondents by then recovered a sum of Rs. 2,37,894/- from the petitioner. The appellate authority, however, despite acknowledging the medical conditions of the petitioner s representative and despite ascertaining that the petitioner was otherwise prevented from filing the appeal within the time prescribed had purported to dismiss the said appeal, inter alia, on the ground that there was no scope for admission of the appeal filed beyond four months from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authorised representative of the petitioner who was in charge of looking after the matter. He submits that the representative of the petitioner had been suffering from cirrhosis of liver which prevented the petitioner from challenging the order passed under Section 73 of the said Act within the prescribed period of limitation. According to the petitioner, although the medical condition of the representative of the petitioner was brought to the notice of the appellate authority, however, the appellate authority had purported to reject the said appeal on the ground that there was no scope to admit the appeal beyond a month from the prescribed period. Mr. Majumder submits that the aforesaid order cannot be sustained, the same should be set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellate authority is not appreciated by this Court. The aforesaid order appears to be contrary to the directive issued by the Hon ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S. K. Chakraborty Sons vs. Union of India reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4759, which, inter alia, provide that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stands attracted for condoning the delay beyond one month from the prescribed period. 6. In view thereof, the order passed on 29th April, 2024 by the appellate authority cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. 7. Further taking note of the explanation given by the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner has been able to sufficiently explain the delay in preferring the appeal. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
