TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ambiar, Member (J)]. The present application is filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The order in question was passed on 25-10-1991. 2. Shri Lakshmi Narayanan, learned Counsel for the applicant stated that this order was received on 27-10-1991 by the applicant/appellant. Therefore, the last date for filing the appeal was 27-1-1992. The learned Counsel stated that the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this dismissal order the appellant filed a SLP before the Hon ble Supreme Court which was finally dismissed on 18-3-1995. The learned Counsel stated that the present appeal is filed on 15-4-1996 and is within 90 days from the dismissal of the SLP. He stated that apparently the appellant was prosecuting their case before the High Court and the Supreme Court. He stated that after the SLP was dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the same and when that cause of action is not challenged it cannot be said that the appellant was apparently prosecuting the proceedings. The benefit of Section 14 also cannot be given to the appellant as the writ appeal was finally dismissed by the Hon ble High Court on 5-9-1995. The learned Counsel also stated that no permission was taken from the High Court for filing SLP before the Hon bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complied with. Therefore there was no stay of the order of the lower authority and the appellant should have taken recourse to the statutory remedy of filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Since the appellant has not taken care and caution by challenging the impugned order before the Tribunal, it cannot be said that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay. We, therefore, dismiss the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
