2016 (6) TMI 1453 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal allowed, order set aside, costs imposed, parties to appear before Tribunal

Dayanand L. Naik and Ors. Versus Vasco Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd.

The Co-operative Appellate Tribunal allowed the petition, setting aside the earlier order and condoning any delay in filing the appeal, subject to ... Condonation of delay of 108 days in filing an appeal challenging the judgment - notice addressed to the petitioner no. 2 was returned unclaimed - HELD THAT:- It is now well settled that normally in the matter of condonation of delay, the Courts adopt a liberal approach. This is more so when the delay is of a short duration. It is well settled that no party stands to gain by approaching the Court late and there is no presumption that the delay in approaching the Court is intentional or deliberate. In the present case, it is found from the roznama of the proceedings that the last date in the proceedings was on 21.09.2013 and thereafter, no date was fixed for pronouncement of the judgment. The record further shows that the notice as required under Section 82(2) of the Act alongwith the copy of the award was served on the petitioners only on 03.03.2014 and the appeal came to be filed within a month thereof i.e. on 02.04.2014. The impugned order dated 18.12.2015 is hereby set aside - petition allowed. Issues:Challenge to delay in filing an appeal before the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal.Analysis:The petitioners contested a judgment and order by the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal, Goa, refusing to condone a 108-day delay in filing an appeal against a previous decision. The misfeasance proceedings were initiated against the petitioners under the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001. The Registrar's Nominee found them liable to pay a substantial sum to the respondent. The petitioners argued that they did not receive a notice as recorded in the impugned order.The Co-operative Appellate Tribunal determined that the notice was served on one petitioner and returned unclaimed for the other, with no valid reason for the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioners approached the matter 'half-heartedly and without bonafides,' leading to the rejection of their application with imposed costs.The petitioners invoked Section 82(2) of the Act, asserting that the notice was served within the limitation period for filing the appeal. They sought condonation of delay, offering to pay costs and deposit a specified amount with the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal to demonstrate good faith. The respondent's counsel contended that the petitioners were aware of the proceedings and lacked bonafides in their approach.The Court acknowledged the liberal approach towards condonation of delay, especially for short durations, citing relevant legal precedents. Considering the timeline of events and service of notice, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and condoning any delay in filing the appeal subject to specified costs and deposits with the respondent-Co-operative Credit Society and the Tribunal.In conclusion, the Court granted the petition, setting aside the earlier order, and allowed for the condonation of any delay in filing the appeal, contingent upon the payment of costs and specified deposits within defined timelines. The parties were directed to appear before the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal for further proceedings.