2014 (2) TMI 1105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the order-in-appeal on 07/02/2011 and the matter was allotted to Shri Hiresh Dhakan, Assistant Company Secretary of the applicant's parent company, i.e., M/s. Ajmera Realty & Infra India ltd. Meanwhile, the assets and liabilities of the applicant, including the entire workforce were taken over by M/s. Essar Steels ltd. Subsequently, Shri Hiresh Dhakan resigned from the company and he was relieved form his duties on 28/02/2011. Due to the resignation of Shri Hiresh Dhakan, the matter went un-noticed, and hence, no further action could be taken against the impugned order. It was only when Shri N.B. Pinglay, Commercial Advisor to the appellant, joined in May 2013 the lapse was noticed and thereafter the appeal has been filed on 18/10/2013. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lame excuse for not filing the appeal in time. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5.1 The only ground adduced in the COD application is that Shri Hiresh Dhakan, who was dealing with the mater left the company and therefore, nobody else was aware of the pendency of the appeal and only when Mr. Pinglay joined in May 2013 the matter was brought to the notice. There is no explanation why after Mr. Hiresh Dhakan left anybody else could take necessary action in filing the appeal. Even after Mr. Pinglay joined in May 2003, there is a delay of six months and the appeal has been relied only in 18/10/2013. From the records, it is seen that Mr. Pinglay was with the appellant firm all through and therefore, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy."    Again in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurty - 1987 (7) SCC 123, the Hon'ble Apex court held as follows:    "It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be un-condonable due to ....