9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (1) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1985. Simultaneously the appellant had also filed an application for condonation of delay. 2. The application for condonation of delay was posted for hearing. The matter was called Shri P.S. Bedi, the learned Consultant on behalf of the appellant has appeared. He has reiterated the contentions made in the application for condonation of delay. He has pleaded that the date of the order is 15-2-1985 and the same was received by the appellant 2 or 3 days after this. He has pleaded that after receipt of the order the same was handed over to one of the employees of Shri P.K. John, who had lost his bag in the train. In support of his contentions, he has filed an affidavit of Shri P.K. John. He has pleaded that after the loss of the copy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant has not been able to establish a sufficient cause and there is negligence on his part. He has also referred to another judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. East Coast Paper Mills reported in 1985 (17) E.L.T. 709. He has pleaded that in view of the earlier judgment of the Tribunal the application for condonation of delay should be rejected. 4. In reply, Shri P.S. Bedi, the learned Consultant has pleaded that a certified copy was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise and the time taken by the applicant in getting a certified copy should be excluded in computing the period of limitation. He has pleaded that this Court should exercise its discretion and condone the delay. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elay, the Court should be very cautious as the substantial rights of the other party are affected. When the time for appealing is once passed, a very valuable right is secured to the successful litigant and the Court must therefore be fully satisfied of the justice on the ground on which the appellant seeks to obtain an extension of time for attacking the decree and thus perhaps defining the successful litigant of the advantages which he has attained-Karsondas v. Bai Gungabai, 30 Bom. 329 (330): Sanghni v. Gopeswar, 12 CLJ 615 (617), Dund Bahadur v. Deo Nandan 17 LJ 596; Surat Chander v. Saraswati, 34 Cal. 126 (221) ; Sohan v. Abdul Hameed Khan, AIR 1976 All. 159. (Extract taken from the Limitation Act, 18th Edition by B.B. Mitra, page 58). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
