Condonation of delay denied where partnership business continued and sickness of one partner was not a sufficient cause.

Delay in filing an appeal was refused to be condoned where the explanation was that the managing partner was sick. The Tribunal held that in a partnership concern, another partner could represent the firm, and the business was not shown to have stopped because it continued through other officers. It found the stated cause insufficient for condonation and noted that delay-condonation rulings depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, with the cited precedent being distinguishable. The application was accordingly rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a delay of 2 months 19 days in filing the appeal could be condoned on the ground that the managing partner was sick and unable to attend to the firm's affairs.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that in a partnership concern, one partner can represent the firm and the business was not shown to have stopped; it continued through other officers. The explanation offered was therefore not treated as a proper or sufficient ground for condonation. The Tribunal also observed that orders on condonation of delay depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and that the precedent relied upon was distinguishable.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application was rejected.

---