9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for condonation of delay and the amount of pre-deposit has also not been made - HELD THAT:- On the amount of pre-deposit, there is enough evidence annexed to the petition that a sum of Rs.7,89,09,672/- has been deposited and even the receipt is annexed to the petition. Therefore, to say that there is no pre-deposit in the impugned order is incorrect. Respondent No.2 shall give personal hearing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Nos.1 and 3. Mr. Jitendra Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for Respondent No.2. 1. Petitioner is impugning an order-in-original dated 6th May 2024 passed by Respondent No.2. The appeal has been dismissed on the ground that the appeal is filed beyond the limitation provided and there was no application for condonation of delay and the amount of pre-deposit has also not been made. 2. With the assista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with Mr. Sridharan. 3. On the amount of pre-deposit, there is enough evidence annexed to the petition that a sum of Rs.7,89,09,672/- has been deposited and even the receipt is annexed to the petition. Therefore, to say that there is no pre-deposit in the impugned order is incorrect. 4. In the circumstances, Mr. Mishra, in fairness, stated that this Court may dispose the petition by quashing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
