The High Court set aside the order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay beyond the prescribed period. Despite the petitioner's representative's medical condition and reasons preventing timely filing, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal citing no scope for admission beyond four months from the order date. However, the court held this contrary to its earlier directive applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allowing condonation of delay beyond one month from the prescribed period. Considering the petitioner's bona fides, the substantial recovery already made, and the established principle of not gaining by filing a belated appeal, the court found the rejection unsustainable and disposed of the petition.
The High Court set aside the order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay beyond the prescribed period. Despite the petitioner's representative's medical condition and reasons preventing timely filing, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal citing no scope for admission beyond four months from the order date. However, the court held this contrary to its earlier directive applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allowing condonation of delay beyond one month from the prescribed period. Considering the petitioner's bona fides, the substantial recovery already made, and the established principle of not gaining by filing a belated appeal, the court found the rejection unsustainable and disposed of the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
