Court grants appeal, sets aside Tribunal's order, directs cost payment.

The Court allowed the appeal, condoned the delay in filing, set aside the Tribunal's order, directed the payment and deposit of costs, and instructed the Tribunal to reconsider the appeal on its merits, ensuring a fair hearing for both parties.

---

---

Issues: Appeal against dismissal for delay in filing, condonation of delay, financial constraint as a reason for delay, discretion of the Court in condoning delay, injustice due to failure to condone delay, setting aside the Tribunal's order, directing payment of costs, restoring the appeal before the Tribunal, deposit of costs with Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

Analysis:
1. Delay in Filing Appeal: The appeal was directed against the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal due to a delay of 117 days in filing. The appellant attributed the delay to financial constraints that prevented the company from depositing the requisite amount. The respondent contended that the delay was not properly explained, as the appellant failed to put the case before the Board of Directors despite having knowledge of the issue.

2. Condonation of Delay: The Court emphasized that while delay must be sufficiently explained, the presence of a substantial case to consider in the appeal allows for the examination of whether the delay can be condoned by imposing suitable costs. Financial inability can be a valid reason for not filing an appeal promptly, and the Court may exercise discretion in condoning the delay based on the circumstances of each case.

3. Exercise of Discretion: The Court noted that the Tribunal should have exercised discretion in condoning the delay, as failing to do so could result in grave injustice to the appellant by depriving them of having their case considered on merits. In this case, no irreversible situation or substantial alteration of rights occurred during the delay period, justifying the condonation of delay and allowing the appeal to proceed.

4. Setting Aside Tribunal's Order: The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed the appellant to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000 to the respondent within four weeks. Upon compliance with this condition, the appeal would be restored before the Tribunal for a hearing on merits, ensuring both sides have an opportunity to present their arguments.

5. Deposit of Costs: To ensure the proper utilization of the costs paid, the Court directed the appellant to deposit the Rs. 10,000 cost with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The receipt of this deposit was required to be produced during the proceedings before the Tribunal as compliance with the Court's order.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, condoned the delay in filing, set aside the Tribunal's order, directed the payment and deposit of costs, and instructed the Tribunal to reconsider the appeal on its merits, ensuring a fair hearing for both parties.

---