TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (2) TMI 275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lay in filing the second appeal. The second appeal was filed on 27-11-1979. The application to condone delay is seen filed on 6-12-1979. The delay is sought to be explained by the original affidavit filed on 6-12-1979 and the additional affidavit filed on 8-2-1980. In the additional affidavit what is stated is that the petitioner was bed-ridden from 15-7-1978 and that she did not know about the di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, this petition has to be dismissed. 5. The petition is not maintainable for another reason. As already indicated though the appeal was filed on 27-11-1079, the petition to condone the delay was filed only on 6-12-1979. Under Order 41 Rule 3A (1), which reads as follows: "3A. Application for condonation of delay. (1) When an appeal is presen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Division Bench decision reported in Thayoob Sait v. Ayyappan (1963 KLT 455). The case went before the Division Bench on a reference by Raghavan, J., as he then was, who doubted the correctness of the principle laid down in Raman Adiodi v Raman (1961 KLT 874). The question referred reads as follows : "Whether a party instituting any proceeding in Court after expiry of the time allowed there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....would thus be clear that no hard and fast rule of general applicability can be laid down for dealing with appeals defectively filed under Order XLI, Rule 1. Appropriate orders will have to be passed having regard to the circumstances of each case, but the most important step to take in cases of defective presentation of appeal is that they should be carefully scrutinised at the initial stage soon ....