Court stresses timely judgments, sets aside delayed orders, directs guidelines to prevent delays

The High Court held that the delay in pronouncing the order beyond the stipulated time was a serious issue, leading to the vulnerability of judgments, which should be set aside. The Court directed the Appellate Tribunal to frame guidelines to prevent such delays. The Tribunal recalled the common orders due to the significant delay in pronouncement, emphasizing the necessity of passing orders within the prescribed time limit to uphold justice and legal precedents.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in pronouncement of order.
2. Recall of the order due to delay.

Issue 1: Delay in pronouncement of order

The appellant sought the recall of the order due to an inordinate delay in pronouncing the judgment after the hearing. The appellant's counsel referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case where delay was criticized. The counsel also highlighted the ITAT Rules, specifically Rule 34(5), which mandates a time limit of three months for passing the order after the conclusion of the hearing. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's observations emphasized that justice delayed is justice denied, citing various legal precedents to support the argument that delayed delivery of judgments can be detrimental to the litigants. The High Court directed the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame guidelines to prevent delays in delivering judgments. The delay in pronouncing the order beyond the stipulated time was considered a serious issue, and the High Court held that such judgments are vulnerable and should be set aside.

Issue 2: Recall of the order due to delay

The respondent, represented by the Departmental Representative, did not dispute the case law regarding the delay but argued that there was no apparent mistake in the order to warrant a recall. However, the Tribunal noted that the delay in pronouncing the order beyond three months, as per the ITAT Rules and the High Court's directive, was significant. The High Court's decision in a related case emphasized that orders must be passed within three months of the completion of the hearing. The Tribunal found that the delay in pronouncing the order was not explained and that administrative clearance could not justify the delay. Citing legal precedents, including a decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Tribunal concluded that orders pronounced after three months are liable for recall and should be heard afresh. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's miscellaneous application and recalled the common orders due to the delay in pronouncement, directing the registry to set the appeals for a new hearing.

This detailed analysis of the judgment reveals the significance of timely pronouncement of orders in accordance with legal requirements and precedents, emphasizing the importance of ensuring justice is not only done but also appears to have been done promptly.

---