Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Pratibha Khandelwal (Rp) & Ors
- CitationInterlocutory Application No.231/2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal condoned a 26-day delay in re-filing a memorandum of appeal after defects were cured, on the ground that the delay was neither deliberate nor wilful and was caused by the counsel's office closure during winter vacation and the time taken to obtain and communicate the defect information to the appellant's counsel. The court held that such reasons were sufficient to condone the delay in re-filing the memorandum of appeal, and directed that the matter be listed for admission as a fresh case.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Regional PF Commissioner, Jaipur .... Appellant
Vs.
Pratibha Khandelwal (RP) & Ors. .... Respondents
Appearance: Kaushik Kr. Dey and Deepali Saigal, Advocates for the Appellant.
18.01.2023
This is an application to extend the time granted for curing the defects.
2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant filed the Memo of Appeal on 05.12.2022 and the Office after scrutiny of the Memo of Appeal on 07.12.2022, intimated the defects to the Appellant on the same day and returned the Memo of Appeal to the Appellant on 09.01.2023. The Appellant re-filed the Memo of Appeal on 09.01.2023. It is stated in the Interlocutory Application (IA) that the certified copy of the impugned order could not be received by the Counsel as the office of the Counsel was closed due to winter vacation and then further time was consumed in the process of receiving the information regarding the defects and informing the same to the Delhi Office of the Appellant and thereafter in communicating the same to the Counsel. Hence, there is delay of 26 days in re-filing the Memo of Appeal, which is neither deliberate nor wilful, so the same may be condoned.
3. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and perused the averments made in the IA as well as Office report.
4. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant and for the reasons mentioned in the IA, which are sufficient, the delay in re- filing the Memo of Appeal is hereby condoned.
5. As prayed, list the case before the Hon'ble Bench under the heading 'for admission (fresh case)'.
6. With the aforesaid order, this IA stands disposed of.
(Peeush Pandey) Registrar
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free