9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal having been filed beyond time prescribed by law, present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay. 2.1 In order to explain the delay in filing the appeal, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant/assessee that on 20.06.2016, arguments in ITA No. 1725/del/2012 and ITA No. 5068/del/2013 were heard by the Tribunal but no further date was fixed; that on 26.05.2019 on inquiry from Registry of the Tribunal qua status of the case, the applicant was informed on 19.06.2019 over telephone from Registry that ITA No. 5068/del/2013 was decided in favour of the applicant but ITA No. 1725/del/2012 was decided against the applicant vide order dated 21.06.2016; that promptly on 20.06.2019, the applicant applied for certified copy of the order dated 21.06.2016 and received the same on 02.07.2019; that on 09.10.2019, the appellant filed before the Tribunal an application seeking review of order dated 21.06.2016, specifically pleading that the applicant had no notice or information about the outcome of the said appeal and also explaining the events mentioned hereinbefore; that accepting the said explanation, the Tribunal admitted the review application to be heard on merits; th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 79 days, for which the appellant has failed to set up a sufficient cause. It was further pleaded on behalf of respondents/revenue that it is difficult to believe that to check the status of the case, the appellant would have kept sitting silent for 1070 days after conclusion of the final arguments before the Tribunal and even after obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order, the applicant opted to seek review of the impugned order instead of promptly filing the appeal. The applicant/assessee being guilty of utmost laxity does not deserve condonation of delay in filing the appeal, as per respondents/revenue. 4. The applicant/assessee filed rejoinder to reaffirm its pleadings of the application. 5. During arguments on the application, learned counsel for both sides reiterated the relevant circumstances as extracted above. 6. In nutshell, the delay in filing the appeal is sought to be explained by the appellant taking resort to Sections 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act. The legal position pertaining to these provisions is well settled across plethora of judicial pronouncements. It is trite that admission of any appeal beyond the prescribed period is not a matter of right of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondents filed in the year 2007 was decreed ex-parte on 04.07.2008; that the remaining respondents filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 05.10.2008, which application was dismissed on 06.08.2010; that the appellant and the applicants preferred appeal on 03.09.2010 to challenge the order dismissing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC but withdrew the said appeal on 11.06.2013; and that thereafter they filed an appeal on 12.06.2013 challenging the ex-parte partition decree along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 04 years 10 months and 08 days. After traversing through the legal position pertaining to Section 5 Limitation Act, the Supreme Court held that the time spent in pursuing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is to be taken as sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing the appeal. 6.3 Most recently in the case of Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs vs Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1278 [Civil Appeal No. 5867 of 2015 decided on 09.10.2023], the Supreme Court again traversed through a plethora of judicial pronouncements and held thus: "29. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itiated and continued to prosecute the review remedy but met failure in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Telecom. On the other hand, the respondents/revenue largely contended that the delay in filing the appeal was on account of extreme laxity on the part of the applicant/assessee. 9. Significantly, the respondents/revenue did not make even a whisper in their reply or even arguments that copies of the impugned order and order of dismissal of the review application or even intimation of those dismissals were ever conveyed by their officials on their own to the applicant/assessee. Since after conclusion of final arguments (advanced on behalf of the applicant/assessee by one if its Directors in person) no date for pronouncement of order was fixed, it was the bounden duty of the Tribunal to serve or at least dispatch a copy of the impugned order as well as order of dismissal of review application to the applicant/assessee. There is also no serious challenge to the contention of the applicant/assessee that its Director who had been addressing arguments in person had resigned and got settled abroad while the remaining Directors were not conversant about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
