9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... determination under Section 73 of the said Act dated 17th July, 2023, the petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 107 of the said Act. Since, the said appeal which was otherwise barred by limitation not being accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Appellate Authority, by its order dated 19th January, 2024, was, inter alia, pleased to dismiss the said application. 3. The petitioner is, however, aggrieved by the findings arrived at by the Appellate Authority that there is no scope under the provisions of the said Act for condoning the delay in submitting an appeal beyond four months. 4. Mr. Choraria, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds attracted. Having regard to the aforesaid he submits that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority in refusing to condone the delay and in the facts of the case, direct the Appellate Authority to hear out the appeal by condoning the delay. 7. Ms. Sarkar, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents, on the other hand by drawing attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 107(4) of the said Act submits that there is no power available to the Appellate Authority to condone the delay beyond the period of one month from the prescribed period of 90 days, provided for in preferring the appeal. According to her, the said Act is a self-contained code and excludes the applicabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. 11. The legal issue that falls for consideration in the present petition is whether the Appellate Authority has the jurisdiction and/or competence to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period of one month provided for filing an appeal under Section 107(4) of the said Act. 12. It may be noticed that an identical issue had fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.K. Chakraborty & Sons (supra). The Division Bench of this Court, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 107 of the said Act and the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 on the basis of the provisions contained in Section 29(2) of the Lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no scope under the provisions of the said Act read with corresponding Chapter and Section of the said Act for condoning the delay beyond four month cannot be sustained. Such finding is set aside. 16. At the same time it may be noticed that the petitioner did not file any application for condonation of delay before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner, however, says that before the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be filed the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. 17. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has not filed an application for condonation of delay, this Court cannot consider whether there is any sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
