AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS is an application purporting to be under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of gross delay in preferring the appeal. Admittedly the order under appeal was announced on the 18th of November, 1993, but the present appeal was received by the Commission on the 24th of February, 1994. There is thus a delay of 67 days in preferring the appeal vis-a-vis the strictly prescribed period of 30 days under Section 15 of the Act.
MR. Jagat Narain, the learned Counsel for the appellant in projecting his case was fair enough to concede that the present appeal was even preferred far beyond the prescribed period of 30 days, even from the receipt of the copy of the order of the District Forum, duly despatched to them. Apparently bereft of any meaningful argument to show sufficient cause for non-presentation within 30 days, it was repeatedly argued that on merits the order under appeal was beyond jurisdiction. On that score, it was pleaded that the gross delay in preferring the same was irrelevant. We regret our inability to agree. Where the legislature has expressly provided for an appeal and prescribed the period of limitation, the same has to be honoured by conformance, and not in its breach. It is somewhat elementary that until and unless the appellant crosses the handle of limitation the merits or otherwise of the order under appeal can hardly be looked into.
However, even a look at the order would show that the appellants were duly served and had put in appearance through an employee and placed on record their reply thereto. Therein they admitted having received Rs. 6,000/- from the respondents and also replied to the other allegations. However, later the appellants choose to treat the matter cavalierly and the District Forum was compelled to proceed against them ex-parte. Even taking the appellant''s case at the highest, we are unable to find any inherent lack of jurisdiction in the order either.
THE other somewhat curious plea taken in the application is that the Board of Directors of the appellant-Company held their meeting on the 5th of February, 1994 and thereafter au-thorised the filing of the present appeal and the consequent delay. We are afraid that the Laws of Limitation do not depend or vary with the holding or otherwise of the Board meeting of a litigant Company. The plea of this nature is patently specious and merits rejection out-right.
NO other ground for condonation could be urged and rejecting those put forward, we are constrained to dismiss the present application. Inevitably, the appeal also fails at the bar of limitation. Appeal dismissed.