Tribunal dismisses rectification application over delay, rejects condonation plea, and refuses High Court reference.

The tribunal dismissed the application for rectification of a mistake in the order regarding delay in depositing the amount, citing no grounds for condoning the significant delay. Despite eventual compliance, the appeal was dismissed due to the prolonged delay. The tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay, emphasizing that decisions based on merits do not constitute an error warranting rectification. Additionally, a reference application to the High Court for questions of law was dismissed as the issues raised were deemed non-referable based on the tribunal's decision.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistake in the order regarding delay in depositing the amount.
2. Condonation of delay in depositing the amount for appeal hearing.
3. Rejection of application for condonation of delay.
4. Dismissal of appeal despite depositing the amount after a significant delay.
5. Reference application for questions of law to be referred to the Hon'ble High Court.

Analysis:

1. The judgment involves a petition for rectification of a mistake in an order related to a delay in depositing an amount as per a stay order. The applicant sought restoration of the appeal after explaining the delay in depositing the required sum. However, the tribunal dismissed the application, stating that no case was made out to condone the delay due to the significant time lapse between the order and the deposit. The tribunal allowed the possibility of filing a fresh application if the records could be traced to show earlier payments.

2. The appellant's advocate argued that despite the delay in depositing the amount, the appeal should have been heard on merits since the appellant eventually complied with the deposit order. The tribunal records did not indicate the deposit within the prescribed time, and the delay was over 10 years. The advocate contended that similar cases were allowed by the tribunal despite delays, urging for a fair hearing for the appellant.

3. The tribunal, represented by the JDR, maintained that there was no apparent error on the record, leading to the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay.

4. The tribunal, after considering the submissions, concluded that the delay in depositing the amount could not be condoned after over a decade. The decision was based on the merits of the case, and it was determined that no error was apparent on the record warranting rectification. The tribunal emphasized that a decision based on the merits does not constitute an error on the record, leading to the dismissal of the application.

5. The reference application sought to raise questions of law for the Hon'ble High Court's consideration. However, the tribunal found that the issues raised were not valid for reference as they were covered by the tribunal's decision. The questions regarding the condonation of delay and the dismissal of the appeal were deemed non-referable, resulting in the dismissal of the reference application.

---