9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ") by its order dated 13th March, 2024. 3. It is the petitioner's case that being aggrieved with the determination made under Section 73 of the said Act dated 2nd May, 2023, the petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 107 of the said Act. Since, the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation, the same was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellate authority, however, appears to have rejected the said application for condoning the delay by its order dated 13th March, 2024 and had consequentially rejected the appeal without entertaining the same. 4. Challenging the aforesaid rejection of the application for condonation of delay and the appeal, the present writ petition has been filed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplied exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, by virtue of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 stands 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. Mr. Chakraborty, 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 pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in rejecting the application for condonation of delay, inter alia, on the ground that the same was filed beyond one month from the prescribed period of limitation, as provided in Section 107 (4) of the said Act. 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 Limitation Act 1963 and by placing reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Superintending Engineer/Dehar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Limitation as provided for in Section 107 (4) of the said Act. 14. Having regard to the aforesaid, the order dated 13th March, 2024 passed by the appellate authority in refusing to condone the delay under Section 107 of the said Act is set aside. 15. Since, no useful purpose will be served to remand the matter as regards consideration of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the appellate authority, I am of the view that such issue needs to be considered by this Court. Having considered the application for condonation of delay, and the explanation offered by the petitioner I find that the explanation provided by the petitioner is satisfactory and delay has been sufficiently explained. Having regard thereto the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
