The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Tribunal's order condoning delay in an appeal. The Court held that since the appeal's prayer sought to set aside an order affecting the petitioners, the Tribunal's finding that the appeal was against them was not perverse.
Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICITON
WRIT PETITION NO.996 OF 2007
M/s.Prithvi Engineering & Anr. .. Petitioners.
Versus
Union of India & Another .. Respondents.
Mr.C.V. Lad for the petitioner.
Mrs.Ratina Maravarman with Mrs.N.V. Masurkar for
the respondent.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
D.B. BHOSALE, JJ.
DATED : 17TH AUGUST, 2007.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. In an application for condonation of delay
preferred in the Appeal, the Tribunal was pleased to
record finding that sufficient cause has been shown
to condone the delay in preferring the Appeal. One
of the factors that the Tribunal bore in mind was
that the impugned order was also the subject matter
of an Appeal which was instituted within limitation.
3. On behalf of the petitioners, learned
counsel points out that the appeal preferred was
only against one M/s.Prithvi Containers and the
petitioners herein were not parties to the said
Appeal. In these circumstances, it is pointed out
2
that the findings by the Tribunal that the Appeal
have been preferred also against the present
petitioners would be perverse and consequently
holding that there is sufficient cause in condoning
the delay suffers from error of law apparent on the
face of record and consequently the order is liable
to be quashed and set aside.
4. We have perused the impugned order. We find
that in the appeal preferred though the name of the
petitioners herein was not listed, yet the order in
respect of them was very much the subject matter of
the appeal, at least in the prayer clause where
relief was sought to set aside the order passed in
favour of the petitioners also. In these set of
facts, if the Tribunal has come to the conclusion
that the respondents had preferred a joint appeal it
cannot be said that the said order is perverse,
warranting our interference in our extra-ordinary
jurisdiction.
5. In the light of above, petition is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(D.B. BHOSALE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's condonation of delay in an appeal, which was pendency against the petitioners though not explicitly named, was a perversity warranting the quashing of the order under Article 22
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s.Prithvi Engineering & Anr.
Union of India
F.I. REBELLO
D.B. BHOSALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court