Order No. 8 date: 23-05-2017

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This day is fixed for passing order in respect of the petition filed on behalf of the Appellants seeking condonation of delay in preferring this Appeal.

It is the case of the Appellants that they did not contest the case as they did not receive notice of the complaint case.  They came to know about the impugned order on receipt of a notice from the Respondent on 18-08-2016.  They collected certified copy of the impugned order in the last week of August, 2016.  Thereafter, after due vetting of the case file by various departments, finally the Appeal was filed on 12-09-2016. 

Heard both sides on the petition for condonation of delay and carefully perused the materials on record.

Main defence, as articulated by the Appellants, behind delayed filing of this Appeal by 93 days (excluding the statutory period of limitation) is that they did not receive Notice of the complaint leaving them with no such opportunity to participate in the complaint proceedings. 

Perusal of the impugned Order, however, reveals that due notice was served upon the Appellants, but they did not turn up to contest.  In fact, on going through the order sheets of complaint case from the Confonet Website, we find that vide Order dated 04-02-2016, the Ld. District Forum directed to send notices to the Appellants by Speed Post and from the Order dated 25-02-2016, it transpires that Notices were served upon the OPs. 

Such being the discernable position of this case, it is clear that the Appellants have not approached this Commission with clean hands.   The maxim goes “He who seeks equity must do equity.”

We may, in this regard, place reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Singh Enterprises vs. C.C.E., Jamshedpur & Ors., reported in (2008) 3 SCC 70 or Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private Limited & Ar. Reported in (2009) 5 SCC 79.

Intentional avoidance of the complaint proceedings before the Ld. District Forum by the Appellants being palpable beyond any iota of doubt,  and more so, there being no ‘sufficient cause’ spelt out to justify such belated filing of this Appeal, the petition cannot be favourably considered.  The delay condonation of the Appellants is, accordingly, rejected.

Consequently, the Appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation.