SRI S. COARI, MEMBER.

No. 6/02.03.2011.

Appellant through Mrs. Koyeli Mukhopadhyay, the Ld. Advocate, Respondent No. 1 through Mr. Bibhas Mondal, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent No. 2 through Mr. Abhik K. Dutt, the Ld. Advocate are present. 

The application for condonation of delay is taken up for hearing.  Heard the Ld. Advocate for the parties.  The appeal has been filed out of time by about 673 days.  According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant there is no intentional laches or negligence on the part of the Appellant in preferring the present appeal which out of time by about 673 days.  The Ld. Advocate submits that there was some illness in the family of the conducting lawyer of the Appellant due to which much time has been consumed.  Besides that at different point of time some instructions were to be sought for from different departments of the Appellant - Company and accordingly there is no intentional laches on part of the Appellant and the application for condonation of delay may kindly be allowed.  The Ld. Advocate for the Respondents while opposing such submission has urged before us that there is no bonafide grounds on behalf of the Appellant in preferring the present appeal which is out of time of such prolonged period and in the absence of any cogent and reliable groundds the same may kindly be dismissed.  Having heard the Ld. Advocate for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and cause shown in the application for condonation of delay we are not inclined to allow the same and the same is accordingly dismissed.  The appeal stands dismissed as being barred by limitation.