Court grants condonation for appeal delay due to appellant's reasons, emphasizing prompt remedy seeking.

The Court granted condonation of a 75-day delay in filing an appeal due to reasons provided by the appellant, including a change in leadership leading to oversight. Emphasizing the importance of allowing parties to seek remedy promptly, the Court noted the appellant's good faith in depositing the duty amount and lack of dilatory tactics. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Court decided to condone the delay and allow the appeal to proceed, highlighting the need to consider individual circumstances in condonation cases to ensure parties are not deprived of their right to present their case.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal - Condonation of delay based on reasons provided.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns an application seeking condonation of a 75-day delay in filing an appeal. The appellant explained that the delay occurred because the previous Chairman-cum-Managing Director overseeing the case had resigned, and the new Director was not informed about the pending matter until later. The appellant argued that the delay was not intentional but due to oversight. The appellant cited a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that rules of limitation should not impede a party's right to seek remedy promptly. The Court noted that the entire duty amount had been deposited by the appellants, indicating a lack of dilatory tactics. Relying on the Supreme Court's observation, the Court decided to condone the delay and allow the appeal to proceed.

In the detailed analysis, the Court considered the circumstances surrounding the delay and the appellant's explanation. The appellant's argument that the delay was not intentional but a result of oversight due to the change in leadership was deemed reasonable. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's stance that rules of limitation should not prevent parties from seeking justice promptly. Since the appellants had already paid the duty amount, indicating good faith, the Court found no evidence of dilatory tactics. Consequently, the Court decided to condone the delay and allowed the appeal to move forward. The judgment underscores the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case when deciding on condonation of delay, emphasizing that a genuine oversight should not deprive a party of the opportunity to present their case.

---