Tribunal condones 124-day appeal delay due to financial hardship, prioritizing substantial justice

The tribunal allowed the COD application to condone the delay of 124 days in filing an appeal due to financial hardship. Despite the respondent's challenge to the appellant's preparedness and authenticity of financial state, the tribunal considered the provisional statement of affairs and bank statement as evidence. Emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities, the tribunal accepted the satisfactory cause shown for the delay, leading to the condonation of the delay and allowing the appeal to proceed.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal and seeking condonation of delay.

Analysis:
The case involved a COD application filed to condone the delay of 124 days in filing an appeal. The appellant cited financial hardship as the reason for the delay, supported by a provisional statement of affairs and various judgments, including the Supreme Court judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag vs. MST, Katiji. The respondent argued that the appellant should have been prepared for filing the appeal within the stipulated time and questioned the authenticity of the appellant's financial state. The appellant's consultant submitted a bank statement as evidence, while the respondent contended that there could be other bank accounts.

The tribunal considered the submissions from both sides. It noted that if the order-in-original had been received in time, the appeal could have been filed before the deadline without the need for a mandatory pre-deposit. However, due to the delay in receiving the order, the appeal was filed after the deadline, necessitating the mandatory pre-deposit as per the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. The appellant's consultant argued that the delay was due to the time taken to arrange funds for the pre-deposit, invoking the Supreme Court's observations on the need for substantial justice over technical considerations. The respondent contended that the appellant should have been prepared and arranged for funds in advance to avail the appellate remedy.

Considering the financial hardship evident from the provisional statement of affairs and the bank statement, albeit unaudited, and in light of the Supreme Court's observations emphasizing substantial justice, the tribunal concluded that a satisfactory cause had been shown for condoning the delay. As a result, the COD application was allowed, and the delay was condoned.

---