IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Misc. Application No.
24/2006 IN Appeal No.105/2006 Date of Decision:
Mr. Joby Mathew, Advocate for the appellant. Dr. Poornima Advani, Advocate for the
respondent. CORAM Justice
N. K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer C.
Bhattacharya, Member R.
N. Bhardwaj, Member Per: Justice
N. K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer (Oral) This
appeal is directed against the order dated There
is a delay of 700 days in filing the present appeal. The memorandum of appeal is accompanied by an
application seeking condonation of the delay.
The only two grounds on which the delay is sought to be condoned is that
an employee of the appellant company who was looking after its affairs had left
the service and did not hand over the impugned order to the management and this
fact came to its notice only when it was searching some other papers. It is further stated that it was then that
the appellant came to know that an appeal had to be filed and it contacted a
lawyer to have the memorandum of appeal prepared. It is further averred in the application that
the appellant was
not possessed of sufficient means to file the appeal and it was only after it
could arrange the amount of Rs.50,700/- that the present appeal
has been filed. We
have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the
application are of the view that the reasons mentioned therein do not make out
a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. The fact that an employee had left the
service of the appellant company is by itself no ground to condone this
inordinate delay. Moreover, this plea is
vague and the appellant has not furnished any particulars thereof. The appellant has filed the present appeal
along with a court fee of Rs.50,700/- after arranging
this amount and no reason has been stated as to why the said amount could not
have been arranged earlier. It appears
that the appellant took the matter very casually and is guilty of culpable
negligence in not filing the appeal in time. It is true that the courts/tribunals
are normally liberal in condoning the delay in filing an appeal because no
client would be interested in delaying the filing of the appeal because it
would run counter to its/his interest but nevertheless some reasonable cause
has to be shown for the delay to take a
liberal view in the matter. Taking a
liberal view in condoning delays does not mean that law of limitation has been
given a go bye and unless
some sufficient cause is shown the appeal cannot be
entertained. In the instant case, we are
satisfied that no sufficient cause is shown for the inordinate delay and, therefore,
we have no hesitation in rejecting the application. In
the result, the
application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Sd/- Justice N. K. Sodhi Presiding Officer Sd/- C. Bhattacharya Member Sd/- R. N. Bhardwaj
Member Mumbai, Smn/25/08 IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Appeal No.105/2006 Date of Decision:
Mr. Joby Mathew, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Poornima Advani, Advocate for the
respondent. CORAM Justice
N. K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer C.
Bhattacharya, Member R.
N. Bhardwaj, Member Per: Justice
N. K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer (Oral) There
is a delay of 700 days in filing the appeal.
By our order passed today, the application seeking condonation of delay
has been dismissed. Consequently, the
appeal is dismissed as barred by time. Sd/- Justice N. K. Sodhi Presiding Officer Sd/- C. Bhattacharya Member Sd/- SR. N. Bhardwaj
Member Mumbai, Smn/25/08 |
|||||||||||||