Tribunal Upholds Order: Importance of Timely Objections & Substantive Grounds

The Tribunal dismissed the ROM application challenging an order indicating remand with consent, as the appellant failed to promptly object during the initial pronouncement and did not demonstrate prejudice or clerical errors. The Tribunal emphasized the need for timely objections and substantive grounds for modifications, ultimately rejecting the application for lacking merit.

---

---

Issues: Alleged mistake in order regarding consent for remand

Analysis:
The issue in this case revolves around a ROM application filed by the appellant challenging an order stating that the appeals were remanded with the consent of both sides. The appellant, represented by Shri Madhur Baya, contended that they did not consent to the remand order and requested the Tribunal to rectify the mistake by deleting the word 'consent' from the order.

The Tribunal, consisting of Shri Krishna Kumar and Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, observed that the order was dictated and pronounced in open court. They emphasized that if the appellant had any objection, it should have been raised at that time. The Tribunal maintained that they recorded whatever was agreed upon and could not recollect after a significant gap of over 9 months whether the appellant had consented. They highlighted that the ROM application did not provide any grounds demonstrating how the appellant was prejudiced by the order. When questioned by the Bench, the appellant's counsel could not provide any reasons for the alleged prejudice. The Tribunal noted that the ROM application did not point out any clerical or arithmetical mistakes, and deleting the word 'consent' would effectively reverse the order concerning the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the application and dismissed it for lacking substance.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's request to rectify the order, emphasizing the importance of raising objections promptly and providing valid reasons for challenging the order. The decision underscores the significance of procedural diligence and substantive grounds in seeking modifications to legal orders.

---