TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the case of the Office of the Chief Post Master General (2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) where the appellant Government company had not given any explanation at all. Since the Tribunal in its order did not deal with the explanation given in the appeal before it in the context of whether they by themselves were sufficient cause or not, we find the order was perverse and thus substantial question of law arises. - Matter remanded back - Delay condoned. - G.A. No. 2918 of 2014 & CEXA No. 8 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 25-9-2014 - Soumitra Pal and Arindam Sinha, JJ. Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate, Sanjoy Bhowmick, A. Guha and S. Roy Chowdhury, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Saraf, Advocate, for the Respondent. OR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the matter of litigation where certain proceedings are going on before different authorities, it was required to keep the relevant records in a manner to locate them without loss of any time. Moreover, once the appellant came to know on 23rd September, 2012 from the Superintendent that their appeal has been dismissed, they were at liberty to approach the Department and ask for a copy of the records available if any, with the Department so as to enable them to file the appeal as early as possible but I do not find any such attempt made by the appellant. They had not addressed even any letter to the Department to hand over a copy of the order-in-Appeal. I do not find that the reasons given for the delay in this case are the sufficient ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant did not exercise their liberty to approach the Department and ask for copies of the records available, if any, with the Department so as to enable them to file the appeal as early as possible. On that reason the Tribunal found the appellant did not exercise or show diligence and commitment in prosecuting the matter in time. 6. It appears to us the Tribunal while not accepting the causes shown did not disbelieve per se, such causes but expected from the appellant conduct that would have shown better diligence on its part. Such findings of the Tribunal, in our view, could not be said to have been made in following the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of the Office of the Chief Post Master General (supra) where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
