Dismissal of Appeal Restoration Application due to Lack of Diligence and Credibility

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the application for restoration of an appeal that was dismissed for default after more than six years without a condonation of delay application. The applicants' lack of disclosure on efforts to inquire about the proceedings, retrieve the case file, and credibility issues surrounding the information on appeal dismissal led to doubts about the sincerity of their application. Additionally, the lack of merit in the case due to negligence and non-compliance with regulations further supported the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application for appeal restoration.

---

---

Issues Involved: Application for restoration of appeal dismissed for default after six years without application for condonation of delay; Lack of disclosure on efforts to inquire about proceedings and retrieve case file; Lack of disclosure on advocate's term expiration and file retrieval efforts; Lack of disclosure on when and from whom information about appeal dismissal was obtained; Lack of credibility in affidavit filed by General Manager; Lack of good cause on merits for appeal restoration; Lack of good cause for delay in approaching Tribunal; Lack of sufficient cause for absence during appeal dismissal; Lack of credible source for claim of not receiving order copy from Tribunal.

The application for restoration of the appeal, dismissed for default after more than six years without a condonation of delay application, was considered by the Appellate Tribunal. The applicants claimed unawareness of the appeal's dismissal due to changes in counsel and lack of communication, but failed to provide sufficient details on their efforts to inquire about the proceedings or retrieve the case file, casting doubt on the bona fides of the application.

The application highlighted the expiration of the advocate's term and alleged differences with the advocate as reasons for lack of information on the appeal's status. However, the application did not specify when the advocate's term ended or detail efforts made to retrieve the case file, essential for assessing the sincerity of the applicants in pursuing the matter.

Despite claiming recent knowledge of the appeal's dismissal, the applicants did not disclose when or from whom this information was obtained, undermining the credibility of their assertions. The lack of specific details, including the source of information, raised doubts about the authenticity of the claims made in the application.

The General Manager's affidavit, lacking crucial details about his employment status in 2003 and the source of his knowledge about the proceedings, failed to establish the credibility of the application. The absence of essential information, especially given the significant time elapsed since the appeal's dismissal, further weakened the application's merit.

Moreover, the records indicated a lack of merit in the applicants' case, as they failed to prevent the natural decay of stored molasses following the withdrawal of storage permission. Negligence and non-compliance with regulations could not serve as grounds for duty remission, reinforcing the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application for appeal restoration.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no valid justification for the delay in approaching the Tribunal or the absence during the appeal's dismissal. The vague claim of not receiving the order copy from the Tribunal lacked substantiation, contributing to the dismissal of the application due to insufficient cause and lack of credible evidence to support the appeal's restoration.

---