2003 (7) TMI 564

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Managing Director and Director under Section 35F of the Act. The appellant did not comply with the terms of the stay order and therefore their appeals were dismissed for non-compliance of Stay Order No. 230/95, dated 1-11-95. The appellants had filed writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras against the stay order. However their petitions were not accepted by the Single Member Bench. Later they filed writ appeal in 1998. Their advocate on record Shri A. Jayachandran intimated the appellant by his letter dated 28-1-2002 that the appeal papers could not be traced and advised them to pursue the appeal in CEGAT by depositing the amount of Rs. 3.50 lakhs as directed in the Stay Order. Therefore they deposited the amount and filed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... He submits that the amounts in deposit should be accepted and delay in deposit was on account of the pending writ appeal and that the delay was not on their account but on the account of the court's delay. He submits that in the miscellaneous order there was a finding that there is no proof of filing appeal is not correct as the advocate's letter dated 28-1-2002 had mentioned Writ Appeal Nos. 67848 and 67849 of 1998. Non-listing for hearing is only due to non-tracability in the High Court and not with the advocate. Consultant submits that the present case is distinguishable from the facts of the Master Recording Co. case. He submits that the appeal be restored to its original number as they have complied with the directions of the stay ord....