Court denies condonation of delay in ROM application, stresses adherence to time limits and substantial grounds for recall.

The Court dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the ROM application as it was not pursued by the counsel. The ROM application was deemed time-barred as it was filed after the six-month period. The argument for applying a previous four-year limitation period was rejected, as the amended law requires all ROM applications to be filed within six months. The ROM application lacked merit as no clear mistake of fact or law was found in the final order, and the grounds for recall were deemed insufficient. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to time limits and requiring substantial grounds for rectification requests.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the ROM application.
2. Time-barred nature of the ROM application.
3. Applicability of the period of limitation for filing the ROM application.
4. Merits of the ROM application.

Analysis:

Condonation of Delay:
The COD application seeking condonation of delay in filing the ROM application was dismissed as it was not pressed by the counsel.

Time-barred Nature of ROM Application:
The ROM application was filed after the expiry of the six-month period, rendering it time-barred.

Applicability of Period of Limitation:
The contention that the ROM application should be governed by the previous law with a four-year limitation period was rejected. The amended provision now requires all ROM applications to be filed within six months, without any saving clause for the previous limitation period.

Merits of ROM Application:
On the merits, the ROM application was found to be without basis. No mistake of fact or law was identified in the final order. The grounds for recall, related to the acceptance of a certificate by a Chartered Engineer, were deemed insufficient. The argument that the furnace capacity was not accepted by the Tribunal did not constitute a clear mistake of fact. The evidence had been considered in the final order, and reevaluation of evidence was not permitted. Consequently, the ROM application was dismissed.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the prescribed time limits for filing applications and the need for substantial grounds to support requests for rectification. The decision emphasizes that mere disagreement with findings in the original order does not warrant a review, as long as the evidence was duly considered and addressed in the initial judgment.

---