2000 (11) TMI 1086

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appears that the order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Lucknow, on June 16, 1987. The copy of the said order was served on the State Representative on June 22, 1987, as such the appeal should have been filed within six months from June 22, 1987, i.e., in the month of January, 1988 or in the month of February, 1988. However no appeal was filed on the said date. It appears that the appeal was filed after long gap. In this view of the matter, this Court was pleased to hold that the appeal was barred by time. However, in the meanwhile, an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act was purported to have been filed by the department. I have seen the copy of the application filed under section 5 of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....riod of limitation on equitable grounds." 3.. In the instant case no reasonable or satisfactory explanation for delay in filing the appeal has been given in the application filed by the department under section 5 of the Limitation Act before the Tribunal, as such the Tribunal was wrong in condoning the delay. I set aside the order passed by the Tribunal dated 5th April, 1995. 4.. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. The department preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court. Ravi P. Mehrotra, R.C. Verma and Vivek Vishnoi, Advocates, for the appellants. O.P. Gaggar, Advocate, for the respondent. ORDER Delay is condoned. Leave is granted Heard the learned co....