Improper service of adjudication order cannot defeat limitation where no authority to receive it on behalf of petitioners is shown.

Service of an adjudication order on a company's authorised signatory could not be treated as service on the petitioners in their individual capacity because the record did not show any authorisation to receive the order on their behalf. The Tribunal's finding that the appeals were time-barred therefore rested on an incorrect assumption about service, and limitation had to be computed from the date the certified copy was made available to the petitioners. The rejection of the delay condonation applications was unsustainable, the writ petition succeeded, and the appeals were restored for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the service of the adjudication order on the company's authorised signatory could be treated as service on the petitioners so as to justify rejection of the delay condonation applications and dismissal of the appeals.

Analysis: The record did not show that the petitioners had authorised any person to receive the adjudication order on their behalf. Service on the authorised signatory of the company was not treated as service on the petitioners in their individual capacity. The Tribunal's conclusion that the appeals were time-barred rested on an incorrect assumption regarding service, and the relevant date for computing limitation was the date on which the certified copy was made available to the petitioners.

Conclusion: The rejection of the delay condonation applications was unsustainable. The petitioners were entitled to restoration of the appeals and consideration on merits.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the Tribunal's orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored for decision on merits.

---