TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner as there was absence of sufficient cause in not depositing the amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- before the Tribunal in terms of the orders dated 18-5-2007 and 20-8-2007 - in the absence of the reasons for belatedly filing the application, the application was liable to be dismissed – appeal dismissed - 1937 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 21-6-2011 - Vasanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 11-8-2005. Thereafter, by an order dated 15-9-2005 the petitioner was directed to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 18,62,219/- by 30-10-2005. The order dated 15-9-2005 came to be modified by an order dated 18-5-2007 and the petitioner was directed to deposit only a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/-, instead of depositing the entire amount. The petitioner, however, deposited the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thing on record to show why the petitioner did not file the application till 29-8-2008. Though, the petitioner had merely stated in the application that the petitioner could not deposit the amount in time due to financial difficulty, there was nothing on record to show as to what attempts were made by the petitioner to raise the necessary amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and to deposit the same. The Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod for filing the appeal is three months and by considering the said fact, the application for restoration also ought to have been filed within the maximum period of three months from the dismissal of the appeal, though there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing an application for setting aside the order of dismissal. The Tribunal was justified in holding that in any case, since the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
