Allowed

Manish Vorani of Mumbai Inhabitant v. the Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Dec 2014WP/9350/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Bombay bench quashed the Tribunal's order dismissing an application for condonation of a 340-day delay. The Court held the Tribunal failed to consider admitted medical records and properly exercised its discretion, thereby allowing the appellant to proceed on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of the Tribunal are quashed and set aside. The delay of 340 days is condoned and the Appeal shall be heard on merits.

Manish Vorani of Mumbai Inhabitant Vs the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

12.wp9350.13.doc

Sbw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 9350 OF 2013

¶6

Manish Vorani of Mumbai

¶7

..Petitioner

¶8

Versus -

¶9

The Union of India & Ors.

¶10

..Respondents

¶11

Mr. Prakash Shah with Jas Sanghavi i/b. PDS Legal for the Petitioner. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for the Respondents.

¶12

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶13

DATE :- 15^th DECEMBER, 2014

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

Having heard both sides and perusing the entire Petition, we are of the view that the Tribunal could have taken and in law a reasonable and sympathetic view. The Petitioner was aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai Zone-I, dated 15^th October, 2010. He approached the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai, that Appeal was beyond time and to be precise by 340 days. The application seeking condonation of this delay mentioned the cause as illness not only of the Petitioner but his family members. The Tribunal passes the initial order holding that there is absolutely no evidence on record and details of illness of either the Petitioner or his family members. The Petitioner once

¶16

1/3

¶17

2 12.wp9350.13.doc

¶18

again approaches the Tribunal and prays that such an order be recalled and the voluminous record in the form of medical certificates, medical reports and opinion of the medical practitioners be considered. Even that application for restoration was dismissed. All this has resulted in this Writ Petition.

¶19

2] Mr. Shah appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that the Tribunal in the given facts and circumstances should have exercised its discretion and condoned the delay. The delay was caused not intentionally or deliberately. The Petitioner was not negligent but handicapped on account of he being alone in family and in business matters. The reasonable approach and by compensating other side with payment of costs, therefore, should have been adopted by the Tribunal, is the submission of Mr. Shah.

¶20

3] Mr. Jetly, appearing on the other hand, would submit that the conduct of the Petitioner is such that he was visited with an identical order by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I. His Appeal to the Tribunal was also hopelessly time barred. It could not have been filed after one year. For these reasons, he submits that the Writ Petition be dismissed.

¶21

4] Having perused both orders, we are of the view that there was

¶22

2/3

¶23

3 12.wp9350.13.doc

¶24

definitely material in the form of medical reports and records pertaining to the Petitioners and his immediate family members. The Tribunal proceeded on the footing as if the Petitioner failed to produce any evidence. That was definitely on record and its scrutiny would have enabled the Tribunal to exercise its powers to condone the delay and condone it if the cause was found to be reasonable and bonafide. Having noted the contents of both applications, namely, for condonation of delay and restoration, we are of the view that the delay of 340 days was capable of being condoned. The cause shown does not suffer from utter negligence or lack of bonafides. In these circumstances and when the reasons assigned for the delay were genuine, the initial application should have been allowed and the Petitioner given an opportunity to proceed with the Appeal on merits.

¶25

5] As a result of the above discussion, the impugner order is quashed and set aside. The delay of 340 days in filing the Appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. The Appeal shall be heard on merits and in accordance with law.

¶26

6] There will be no order as to costs.

¶27

wadhwa

¶28

3/3

Manish Vorani of Mumbai Inhabitant v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Vorani of Mumbai Inhabitant v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commission Er of Income TAX-1 Mumbai Vs the Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Mumbai

The Commissioner of Income Tax -v, Vs Prima Paper and Engg.Pvt.Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 10, Mumbai Vs M/S Radhe Krishna Fiscal Pvt. Ltd.

N. K. Bhupeshbabu Vs the Union of India, through Ministry of Finance, Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Cummins India Ltd. Vs the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Advocates Association of Western India and 2 Ors. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.