Condonation of delay accepted where confusion over the proper bench and lack of a Chennai office explained the late appeal filing.

Delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellant's explanation was found sufficient in the circumstances. The delay arose from confusion about the proper bench before which the appeal had to be filed, and the absence of an office in Chennai to handle the filing was accepted as a relevant factor. On that basis, the application for condonation was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The delay was found to have arisen from confusion regarding the proper bench before which the appeal was to be filed. The appellant had no office in Chennai to handle the matter, and the explanation was accepted as sufficient in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the application was allowed.

---