9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o sign the appeal memo or to place on record resolutions authorising such signatory with the necessary powers. Denial of such opportunity violates the principles of natural justice and fair play, not to mention avoidable harassment and pressure on the Court s docket. The impugned order dated 31 July 2024 is set aside - the Petitioner s appeal restored to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on its merits and per law - appeal disposed off. - M.S. SONAK JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Prasad Paranjape, i/b, Lumiere Law Partner,. For the Respondents : Ms Jaymala Ostwal a/w Sangeeta Yadav,. ORAL JUDGMENT :- (PER M. S. SONAK, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n signed by authorised signatory and the Appellant has not submitted Board Resolution under the Companies Act, 1956, appointing the said person as authorised signatory to sign the appeals, documents or any other proof of his being authorised signatory of Appellant. Appeal has been signed and verified by one Akshaya P. Herle. We find in the impugned order the Appellate Authority admits that an affidavit has been signed and verified by the same Akshaya P. Herle reiterating the arguments made during the personal hearing. In our view, if the Appellate Authority wanted to verify the authority of Akshaya P. Herle, he was duty bound to call upon Appellant, if he had any doubts with regard to the authority. In this case, in our view, if only the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, we do not approve of the appellate authorities adopting such shortcuts and dismissing the appeals, even without allowing the appellants to either establish that the signatory was authorised to sign the appeal memo or to place on record resolutions authorising such signatory with the necessary powers. Denial of such opportunity violates the principles of natural justice and fair play, not to mention avoidable harassment and pressure on the Court s docket. We were informed that there were about 100 such orders made by this officer dismissing appeals on hyper-technicalities without giving a fair opportunity to the appellants. 8. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 31 July 2024 and restore the Petitioner s appeal to the file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
