New Piar Bus Service vs Ajit Singh and Others

K.S. Tiwana, J.—The case under appeal was decided by the Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar, on 10th of September, 1980. The Appellant-Company, which was the Respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, applied for the copy of the award on 20th of September, 1980. The copy was delivered to the Appellant on 29th of October, 1980. Parties are agreed that after excluding the time spent in the preparation of the copy, the last day of limitation for filing the appeal was 22nd of January, 1981. The present appeal was filed in the Registry of this Court on 9th of December, 1980 by the Counsel for the Appellant, which was returned on the next day, that is, 10th of December, 1980 for removing certain objections. It was refiled by Mr. M.S. Dhillon, Advocate, on 22nd January, 1981. It was again returned on 23rd January, 1981 with a note by the office that the objections pointed out had not been met. After removal of the objections the appeal was refiled on 5th of February, 1981.

The office has raised an objections that the appeal was barred by time as the counsel for the Appellant had taken more than 40 days, as required by the Rules of this Court, to remove the objections dated 10th of December, 1980.

It has been noticed that the main objection raised by the office was that the appeal was filed on behalf of the company and there was no Resolution of the Company authorising the filling of an appeal, The Resolution, which has been filed with the refiled grounds of appeal is dated 29th of January, 1981, vide which Mr. M.S. Dhillon, Advocate, was authorised by the Directors of the Appellant-Company to file the appeal. The Resolution is dated 29th of January, 1981. This shows that the Directors of the Appellant-company had passed the Resolution seven days after the expiry of the period of limitation. In view of this it cannot be said that the presentation of the Memorandum of appeal was under any authority. It was, therefore, incompetent. The learned Counsel for the Appellant tried to say that the passing of the Resolution on 29th of January, 1981, should tantamount to ratification of the action of Mr. Dhillon for filing the appeal on 9th of December, 1981. We have gone through the contents of the Resolution. It does not talk of ratification at all and this act of ratification being a question of fact cannot be taken into consideration unless it is so specifically included in the Resolution itself.

For the foregoing reasons we are not inclined to agree with the learned Counsel for the Appellant to condone the period of limitation. Dismissed.

Surinder Singh, J.

I agree.