Condonation of delay in benami appeal upheld where tribunal exercised discretion reasonably and no perversity was shown.

The Madras HC reiterated that interference with an appellate tribunal's discretionary order condoning delay is justified only where the discretion is shown to be arbitrary, perverse or based on untenable grounds. In a benami-law appeal involving a 763-day delay, the tribunal had accepted the department's explanation and considered the connected appeals and the need to decide the matter on merits. As no material was shown to establish improper exercise of discretion, the condonation of delay was upheld and no interference was made.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal's order condoning a delay of 763 days in filing the statutory appeal under the benami law called for interference.

Analysis: The delay was condoned by the Tribunal after considering the explanation furnished by the department and the surrounding circumstances, including the existence of connected appeals and the need to decide the matter on merits. Interference in appeal is warranted only where the discretion to condone delay is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or based on untenable grounds. No material was shown to establish that the Tribunal exercised its discretion improperly.

Conclusion: The condonation of delay was upheld and no interference was made with the Tribunal's exercise of discretion.

---