C E S C LIMITED Vs. PRABHABATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition for condonation of delay filed by the appellant is first taken up for hearing and disposal. We have noticed that there is a delay of 76 days in preferring the appeal after receiving the impugned order of the Forum below. Heard argument advanced by the appellant. It is the case of the appellant in the condonation petition that the impugned judgment was passed on 20.5.2002, and the copy of the same was ready and issued on 24.5.2002. It is stated in the condonation petition that this delay was caused in sending papers from local office to corporate legal and therefrom to the legal advisor at the Head Office. Thereafter the papers were placed before the concerned Advocate for preferring the appeal before the Commission. The concerned Advocate took some time for preparing the relevant papers and then the appeal was filed on 9.8.2002. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant, that the delay was not intentional and if the delay is not condoned and the appeal is not admitted the appellant will be irreparably prejudiced, not being able to challenge the impugned judgment.

(2.) The respondent is absent on repeated calls, though the respondent had entered appearance on 28.1.2003.

(3.) In the present appeal the period between 24.5.2002 and 23.6.2002 was the period statutorily prescribed for fling the appeal. The question of explaining that period did not arise as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2002) 9 SCC 593. It is only the period of those 13 days before the filing of the appeal which was required to be explained and proper explanation for that period has been given and we see no reason to disbelieve.