BALU BABURAO MHATRE Vs. BHARAT KUMAR MOTILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Notice of Motion is taken up by the appellant (Original respondent) praying that the delay of 465 days in filing the present appeal be condoned. We have taken on record the affidavit of Mr. Mohandas Mithalal Jain partner of the respondent-company.

(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at some length. He has drawn our attention to the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. In the affidavit, following explanation is offered:

(3.) We are not satisfied with this explanation. The appellant has merely stated that the file sent by his advocate was mixed up with some papers in the office of the union and the union was unable to inform him about the status of the matter. It is further stated that it is only in Christmas vacation in 2007 that the file was discovered by the union. Thereafter, when his advocate got to know about the impugned order, he applied for certified copy thereof on January 3, 2008. According to the appellant certified copy is still not received. The appeal is filed on a simple copy. It is not possible to accept this explanation. We find this explanation to be extremely vague.