TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the appeal memo the appellants have filed an application for condonation of delay. 2. Shri L.P. Asthana, the learned Senior Departmental Representative who has appeared on behalf of the appellant, has pleaded that before the appeal could be filed, the appellant had to ascertain the correct legal position to enable him to file the appeal and the appellant was having correspondence with the lower staff and it took sufficiently long time and the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period. Shri Asthana, the learned SDR, pleaded that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. In support of his argument, he has referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me shows that the reason given is only that the matter was under correspondence with the lower formation for getting some more details. The judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji reported in 1987(28) E.L.T. 185 does not help the appellant. In that matter there was a delay of four days. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. reported in 1988(38) E.L.T. 739 had held that inter-departmental correspondence and processing is not a sufficient cause. Relevant extract from the said judgment is reproduced below :- 4. From 26-12-1986 to 10-2-1987 and from 6-3-1987 to 24-3-1987 there is no cogent and possible explanation. It may be mentioned that the special ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur of the decree holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties and this legal right which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time should not be light-heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal. It is however, necessary to emphasise that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court by S. 5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
