TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Honble Allahabad High Court in the case of R.K. Agarwal (2007 (11) TMI 62 - HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD) where the petitioner was ex-director of Company. - Tribunal had not examined scope of Section 37C of the Act in the light of Case laws as cited by the Learned Advocate. But the facts were not disputed by the applicants. In my considered view, the Tribunal cannot rectify such mistakes in the present application. - Rectification denied. - Application No. : E/ROM/16904/2014, E/ROM/16905/2014 In Appeal No. : E/12856/2014-SM, E/12857/2014-SM - ORDER No. M/11295-11296/2015 - Dated:- 9-10-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Ms. Reena Khair (Acvocate) For the Respondent : Shri J Nair (Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. The Learned Authorised Representative submits that in the instant case, it is held that one of the applicants signed the appeal filed by the company within the stipulated period before the Commissioner (Appeals). It is clear from the records that the applicants had knowledge of the service of Adjudication Orders. 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of records, the relevant portion of Final Order dated 14/11/2013 of the Tribunal is reproduced below:- (3) It is the case of Id.Counsel that the Order-in-Originals in respect of these two individuals were not served on them and were served on the Manager on 01.02.2014 and there is a delay of 22 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. It is her submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention of the Learned Advocate is that the Tribunal while passing the order had committed apparent mistake in so far as, it failed to appreciate the scope of Section 37 C (1) (a) of the Act 1994. It is supported by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Saral Wire Craft Pvt. Ltd. (supra), where it is observed that the Order served on a kitchen boy and not on concerned person or any authorised person of the appellant, is not valid service. She also relied upon the decision of the Honble Allahabad High Court in the case of R.K. Agarwal (Supra) where the petitioner was ex-director of Company. 6. On perusal of the Final Order dated 14/11/2014, I find that the Tribunal had given a finding that the Order in Original wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
