The courts dismissed the appeal, holding the 425-day delay unacceptable and finding on merits that the appeal lacked substance. The order affirmed that Section 8F(3) proceedings do not permit recovery from guarantor assets absent adjudication of their unity with the debtor.
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.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA
Organization on 28.10.2015. The only explanation offered for the inordinate delay of 425 days in filing the appeal is that the certified copy of the judgment of the learned SingleJudge was not sent to the Departmentby the counsel who appeared in the writ petition. The explanation offered for the long delay of 425 days apart fi-om being extremely vague is totally unsatisfactory. We, therefore, do not find any justifiable reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
^
^
wy
CfflEF JUSTICE
JAYANTNATH, J
JANUARY 13, 2016/ 'anb' LPA 23/2016
Page 2 of2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the explanation for 425 days delay in filing appeal justifies condonation.
Whether assets of guarantors can be proceeded against without notice or adjudication of unity of entity.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
AY KALE
JAYANTNATH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
