TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, whereby a group of properties were ordered to be forfeited, some of which are held in the name of the present appellant either individually or jointly with some other family member. The appeal was received in the Registry on May 9, 1995. The appellant being aware of the delay in filing the appeal has filed the present application seeking cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or about March 6, 1995, and that after receiving the same he instructed his cousin to file an appeal against the said order through his advocate, but since the said advocate was busy preparing for the trial of the appellant, the appeal could not be filed in time. He adds that another advocate of the appellant was out of India, and so the appeal could not be filed in time. Without going into the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time". (emphasis supplied). A plain reading of the above provision shows, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the power which this Tribunal has under the statute for condonation of delay is only that of 15 days, after the expiry of the normal period of 45 days which means up to the 60th day. That in the case of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f which is essentially a question of fact, and this submission is being made for the first time today during hearing in court ; otherwise also in view of the fact that the statute does not vest any power in this Tribunal to condone any delay, even on sufficient cause being shown, after the expiry of 60 days from the date of service of the impugned order, we are, therefore, not going into these que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
