This order in an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The court considered the reasons for a 366-day delay, including a pending rectification application, and the respondent's lack of opposition. The court condoned the delay.
The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was allowed.
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
C.M.P.No.5900 of 2017 In C.M.A.No.SR20671 of 2017
RAJIV SHAKDHER,J. AND R.SURESH KUMAR,J.
(Order of the Court was made by RAJIV SHAKDHER,J.)
1.This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal.
1.1.The period of delay involved is 366 days.
2.The accompanying appeal assails the final order bearing No.41244 of 2015 dated 10.09.2015. Principally, the delay in filing this appeal, is, on account of the fact that a rectification application was filed by the applicant, with the Tribunal on 06.04.2016, which was dismissed on 22.12.2016.
2.1.The applicant/ appellant avers that the order dismissing the rectification application was received by it, on 23.01.2017.
2.2.To be noted, qua, the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the rectification application, a substantive appeal has been filed, which is listed as item no.6, on our Board, today. The said appeal is numbered as C.M.A.No.1278 of 2017.
3.Ms.Hemalatha, who appears for the contesting respondent i.e.,
2
respondent no.2, does not oppose the condonation of delay.
4.Having regard to the reasons given in the affidavit and in view of Ms.Hemalatha, not opposing the condonation of delay, we are inclined to condone the delay.
4.1.The application is accordingly, allowed.
5.The Registry will, consequently, number the accompanying appeal, if it is otherwise in order and list the same, for hearing on 02.06.2017.
6.We may also note that in so far as the applicant/ appellant is concerned, the affidavit enclosing the captioned application bears the seal of 'The Ramco Cements Limited'.
6.1.We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/ appellant that the name of the applicant/ appellant stands changed from 'Madras Cements Limited' to 'The Ramco Cements Limited'.
6.2.Accordingly, the learned counsel will take appropriate steps for bringing about the change in the cause title.
(R.S.A.,J.) (R.S.K.,J.) 01.06.2017
pri
3
RAJIV SHAKDHER,J. AND R.SURESH KUMAR,J. pri
C.M.P.No.5900 of 2017 In C.M.A.No.SR20671 of 2017
01.06.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of 366 days in filing the appeal can be condoned given the reasons provided and the respondent's consent.
The Ramco Cements Limited
Respondent no.2
RAJIV SHAKDHER
R SURESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
