2018 (5) TMI 325 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court dismisses time-barred appeals, emphasizing acknowledgment of order receipt within time frame.

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, affirming that the appellants' appeals were time-barred and there was no sufficient cause for ... Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appellants’ appeals as being barred by time and was justified in holding that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeals? - Held that: - The limitation to file an appeal before the Tribunal is 45 days from the date of the service of the order as prescribed under SAFEMA. However, if the appeal is filed beyond the period of 45 days then on sufficient cause being shown, the Appellate Authority is empowered to condone the delay in filing the appeal only up to 60 days but not beyond the period of 60 days - In this case, the appeals were filed beyond the period of 60 days, i.e., the appeals were filed on 81st day after the service of the order. The Tribunal, Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court were right in dismissing the appeals as being barred by limitation holding that there was no sufficient cause in filing the appeals beyond the period of limitation and that the Tribunal did not have power to condone the delay beyond 60 days - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues Involved:- Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeals as being barred by time and holding that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeals.- Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the order of the Tribunal.Analysis:- The case involved appeals against an order passed by the High Court of Delhi, where the Division Bench upheld the order of the Single Judge dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants. The main issue revolved around the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals as time-barred and the subsequent validation of this decision by the High Court.- The appellants had filed appeals beyond the prescribed 60-day limit after the service of the order. They sought condonation of delay, claiming sufficient cause for the delay. However, the Tribunal held that there was no justification for condoning the delay as the appeals were filed on the 81st day after the service of the order, exceeding the permissible limit.- The High Court, in line with the Tribunal's decision, upheld the dismissal of the appeals as time-barred. The Division Bench affirmed this decision, leading to the appellants filing special leave appeals in the Supreme Court challenging the orders of the lower courts.- The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, found no merit in the appeals. The Court emphasized that the appeals were filed well beyond the 60-day limit, and the appellants' admission of receiving the order within the specified time frame further weakened their case for condonation of delay.- The Court highlighted that the knowledge of the order by the appellants and their subsequent filing of appeals indicated that any irregularities in the service of the order were immaterial. The Court referenced previous judgments to support its conclusion that the decisions of the lower courts were appropriate in dismissing the appeals as time-barred.- Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Tribunal, Single Judge, and Division Bench of the High Court, concluding that there was no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals beyond the limitation period. The Court deemed the decisions as factual and not illegal or perverse, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.- In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the lower courts' decisions regarding the time-barred nature of the appeals and the lack of justification for condoning the delay in filing them.