9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the delay. This period of one month admittedly came to an end in mid-May, which time this Tribunal was fully operational. However, there seems to have been total inertia and non-action on the part of the Applicant to take any steps towards removing the defects. Delay thereafter from June onwards has been conveniently attributed to the summer vacations of the court. This is a lame and hackneyed excuse which clearly has no legs to stand on since the Registry is always open and working even during vacation time. It is not impressed with vacations being made the scapegoat to cover up the Applicant s lethargy in curing the defects. Another ground cited by the Applicant is that a lot of time got consumed as they had to repeatedly make correctio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow: 4. Unfortunately, on 16.04.2024, the counsel for the Deponent faced a bereavement in the family as the Appellant s Counsel s grandfather, residing in Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, passed away. As a result, the counsel had to travel to Gorakhpur and make multiple trips over the course of a month for the completion of final rituals. During this period of personal loss and emotional distress, the Deponent s counsel was unable to refile the Appeal. 5. Subsequently, in June 2024, due to the summer vacation and limited staffing in the office, the counsel for the Appellant was unable to facilitate the refiling of the Appeal during this time. Subsequently, on June 27, 2024, when office of the Deponent s counsel resumed operations, the Appeal was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration. 5. The above submissions of the Applicant were vehemently contested by Ms Shiva Lakshmi, Learned Counsel for the Respondent stating that the delay of 166 days in refiling being was inordinately long and the grounds of condonation of refiling delay as placed on affidavit lacks cogent basis. The refiling delay was entirely on account of the casual approach of the Applicant coupled with negligence and lack of thoroughness in properly curing the defects. In the absence of sufficient and valid grounds, the refiling delay condonation application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the records. 7. It goes without saying that it is normative that re-filing dela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they had to repeatedly make corrections because of defects being pointed out by the Registry on four different occasions. We are not convinced by this argument either as it only substantiates the contention of the Respondent that the Applicant was lackadaisical and negligent while making the corrections and removing the defects in a timely manner. Had the Applicant been more alert, careful and vigilant, they would not have been required to undergo the rigmarole of correcting defects four times. From the above analysis, we are of the considered view that the delay was clearly not occasioned by factors which were beyond the control of the applicant but preponderantly actuated by their inaction or non-action. In sum, the reasons for delay as s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
