Sheetal Medicare Products Pvt.Ltd. … Applicant. In the matter between M/s.Sheetal Medicare Products Pvt.Ltd. … Petitioner. V/s. Union of India and another. … Respondents.

¶14

Mr.Anil Balani i/b. Mr.V.P.Dubey for the applicants in all matters. Mr.Karan Adik with Mr.Ram Ochani for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶15

SKN

¶16

2/2 97.19-nma--.doc

¶17

` CORAM : A.S.OKA AND M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 5^th April 2019.

¶18

P.C.:

¶19

We grant leave to amend for correcting inadvertent errors in the prayer clauses of the notices of motion. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date this order is uploaded.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants at the outset states that the appeals preferred by the applicants will remain confined to the order dated 13^th February 2015/18^th February 2015 passed in appeals by CESTAT. We accept the said statement.

¶21

There is a delay of 959 days in preferring appeals against the order dated 13^th February 2015/18^th February 2015. The notices of motion are opposed by the respondents. We have perused the affidavit in support of the notice of motion. A copy of the said order received by the applicant on or about 21^st February 2015. It is stated that on 25^th June 2015, application for rectification was filed by the applicants before the Tribunal. The application for rectification was dismissed on 24^th January 2018. A copy of the said order was received on 2^nd March 2018. Therefore, there is more than sufficient explanation for the delay of 959 days. Hence, sufficient cause is made out to condone delay. Notices of motion are made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

Devendra Pandya v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Devendra Pandya v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Bms Chemie and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise Vs Vikhroli Corporate Park Pvt. Ltd.

The Senior Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corpn of India Vs Office of the Insurance Ombudsman and Anr.

The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise, Navi Mumbai Commissionerate Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Luis Santan Coleco Vs the Honble Grievance Redressal Committee and 5 Ors.

Prem Ramesh Soshte Vs the Hon'Ble Grievance Redressal Committee and Ors. 5