Appeals Dismissed Due to Delay in Filing

The tribunal rejected the applications seeking condonation of a 116-day delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The tribunal found the appellants negligent in their approach and held that the delay in inter-departmental file movement could not justify condonation, following the precedent set in Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd.

---

---

Issues: Condonation of Delay in filing applications seeking condonation of delay of 116 days.

In this case, the appellants filed applications seeking condonation of a 116-day delay. The appellants were represented by Shri B.L. Sanjeev, who was absent during the proceedings. The JCDR representing the respondent argued against granting condonation, citing the enormity of the delay and the appellants' failure to obtain necessary sanctions from the government department in a timely manner. The JCDR pointed out that the delay in movement of files was not a valid ground for condonation, referencing the decision in the case of Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. The affidavit filed by the Director of the appellant's concern acknowledged a delay of 213 days in various processes, with the limitation period being 90 days and the actual delay being 116 days. The appellants blamed the State Government for the delay in giving permission. However, after careful consideration, the tribunal found the appellants negligent in their approach. The tribunal held that the delay in inter-departmental file movement could not justify condonation, following the precedent set in the case of Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. Consequently, the applications for condonation were rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

---