9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal in Final Order No. 738 of 2006, dated 14-8-2006 in E/Appeal No. 301/2006 whereby the order passed by the second respondent dated 19-1-2006 non-suiting the petitioner for condoning the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal has been confirmed. 2. The reason stated by the Tribunal was that the delay was sought to be explained by the petitioner by submitting that one Mr. Kathiravan, the Mana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning the delay. 3. I have heard learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record. 4. I am of the view that the literal interpretation given on the certificate that the petitioner was advised to rest from 7-11-2005 to 17-11-2005 cannot be legally an appreciable finding. It is the opinion of the doctor that the petitioner was required to take rest for that period. That does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where the petitioner sought for condoning the delay 25 days and a part of which has been explained by producing the medical certificate. Hence, this Court is of the view that the second respondent ought to have condoned the delay and allowed the petitioner to have their case decided on merits. But, that course has not been adopted and the order of the second respondent has also been confirmed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
