Murugiah Kuthalanathan vs CA Mahalingam Suresh Kumar & Ors.

This application is filed, seeking condonation of delay of 15 days in filing of the appeal. The impugned order was passed on 25.08.2023. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was not a party to the lis, therefore, the limitation has to be counted from the date of knowledge.

It is alleged that the impugned order came to its notice on 08.09.2023 and the appeal was filed on 19.10.2023, therefore, the appeal though has been filed beyond the period of 30 days, prescribed under Section 61 (2) of the Code but it is within the period of 15 days as provided in the Section 61 (2) proviso. It is submitted that no reason was given in the application for condonation of delay but an additional affidavit has been filed to explain the reason in which it is stated that the appellant was unwell though without any supporting evidence.

Be that as it may, Counsel for the Appellant has been fair enough to concede, during the course of hearing, that though the limitation is to be counted from the date of passing of the order but in this case since the appellant was not a party to the lis, therefore, it has to be counted from the date of knowledge. However, he could not cite any precedent in his favour to support his contention.

In such a situation, since the order was passed on 25.08.2023 and is filed on 19.10.2023, therefore, period of 26 days have passed beyond the period of 30 days.

In the case of ‘National Spot Exchange vs. Mr. Anil Kohli RP for Dunar Foods Ltd.’ in SCC Online SC 716, 2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period of 15 days which also cannot be condoned even under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Since in the present case the appeal has been filed on 26^th day i.e. 9 days after expiry of 15 days, the tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to even entertain the application for condonation of delay, therefore, the application is held to be not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed as such. No costs.

Since, we have dismissed the application for condonation of delay by an order of even date, therefore, the present appeal is not found duly constituted and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.

This application is filed for condonation of delay of 35 days in filing of the appeal. The impugned order was passed on 25.08.2023. It is alleged that even if the date of knowledge is taken into consideration i.e. 08.09.2023, the present appeal is beyond the period of 45 days.

Hence, this court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application after expiry of period of 45 days and therefore, the application is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.

Since, we have dismissed the application for condonation of delay by an order of even date, therefore, the present appeal is not found duly constituted and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.