ORDER NO. 4 DT. 04.05.2012

MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

          The record is placed today for passing necessary orders in respect of an application for condonation of delay filed by the Appellant/Petitioner in preferring the present Appeal, which is out of time by about 285 days.  The main contention of the Appellant for condonation of delay, in brief, is that the impugned judgement was passed on 26.5.10 and that the copy of the judgement was never served upon the Petitioner/Appellant and the Petitioner first case to know about the existence of the impugned judgement when police officials came to the Appellant in the matter of issuance of warrant of arrest against the officer of the petitioner bank in connection with an execution case, which arose out of the order dt. 26.5.10.  Subsequently, the petitioner company took bail in the matter and placed the matter in question before the legal department for necessary action and thereafter the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/Petitioner obtained first certified copy of the impugned order and thereafter it came to the knowledge of the Appellant/Petitioner that the summons in the complaint case was initially sent to the office wherefrom the Appellant/Petitioner’s office was shifted to another place and that the summons were served in a wrong address of the Appellant/Petitioner and all these factors are responsible for passing of the ex parte order by the Ld. District Forum against the Appellant/Petitioner to the detriment of interest of the Appellant/Petitioner.  Subsequently, when the Appeal was made ready and filed before this Hon’ble Commission, 585 days have already elapsed.  There is no intentional laches or lacuna on the part of the Appellant/Petitioner for the aforesaid delay, which has been caused unintentionally and for this unintentional delay the Appellant/Petitioner should not be penalized and the application for condonation of delay may kindly be allowed.  The application for condonation of delay is contested by the Respondent by filing a written objection thereby denying all the material averments made in the said application contending inter alia that during the execution proceeding the Appellant/Petitioner did appear, but for reasons best known to the Appellant/Petitioner ultimately refrained from taking steps in the execution proceeding, which has resulted in issuance of warrant of arrest and that from the materials on record it would be palpably clear that there are intentional laches and/or lacuna on the part of the Appellant/Petitioner in preferring the Appeal, which is out of time by 585 days.

          We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of both sides and having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record we find that the petitioner has admitted receipt of summons at the same address wherefrom the present business of the Petitioner is being conducted.  If that be the position, we find no merit in the application for condonation of delay and accordingly, we hold that the petition for condonation of delay should be rejected.

           Hence, it is ORDERED that the petition for condonation of delay stands dismissed without any order as to cost.  Consequently the Appeal also stands dismissed being barred by limitation.