1. Challenge to Collector's order — Payment already made — Expiry of limitation period for filing appeal to tribunal. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 27
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S.Verma : S.P.Bharucha
Madura Coats
Versus
Collector Of Central Excise, Madurai
Case No. : 17152 , 17153 of 1993
Date of Decision : 1/10/94
Advocates Appeared: Chaudhuri K.P. : Sharma R.K. : Sharma Shivi : Sorabjee Soli J. : Swam N.S.
Advocates:
K.P.CHOUDHARY, N.S.SVAM, R.K.Sharma, SHIVI SHARMA, SOLI J.SORABJI
K.P.CHOUDHARY, N.S.SVAM, R.K.Sharma, SHIVI SHARMA, SOLI J.SORABJI
Pendency of proceedings in the High Court and Supreme Court constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing an appeal before a tribunal.
Headnote:(A) Limitation - Condonation of delay - Appeal to Tribunal - Pendency of proceedings in High Court and Supreme Court treated as sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing appeal, provided appeal is filed within a specified timeframe. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner had already paid the amount claimed under an order. Although a remedy of appeal to the tribunal was available, the prescribed limitation period for filing the appeal had elapsed. The petitioner had previously pursued proceedings in the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner should avail the available remedy of appeal. It directed that if the appeal is filed within two weeks, it shall not be dismissed as time-barred.
Issues: Whether the time elapsed beyond the limitation period for filing an appeal to the tribunal could be condoned due to the pendency of proceedings in the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The pendency of proceedings in the High Court as well as in the Supreme Court is treated as sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing an appeal to the tribunal.
Result: S.L.Ps are dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
limitation
- condonation of delay (Para 1)
-
limitation
Table of Contents
2. Availability of statutory appeal — Request for condonation of delay due to pendency of proceedings in other courts. (Para 1 )
3. Availability of alternative statutory remedy — Necessity of availing available appellate remedy before seeking higher court intervention. (Para 1 )
4. Condonation of delay — Pendency of proceedings in higher courts as sufficient cause for extending limitation period for statutory appeal. (Para 1 )
5. Special Leave Petitions dismissed — Direction to tribunal to condone delay if appeal is filed within two weeks. (Para 1 )
6. Whether pendency of proceedings in higher courts constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing a statutory appeal?
Yes, the court held that the pendency of proceedings in the High Court and the Supreme Court can be treated as sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. (Para 1 )
(1) MR. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not seekng any stay of the payment required to be made by the Collectors order dated 14/12/1992 since the amount claimed has already been paid by the petitioner. Learned counsel does not dispute the fact that the remedy of appeal to the tribunal is available to the petitioner. This being so, we see no reason why the petitioner should not avail the remedy of appeal so available to it. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the period for limitation prescribed for filing the appeal has elapsed in the meantime. We therefore direct that in case the appeal is filed by the petitioner within two weeks from today, the apper or from today, the appeal shall not be dismssed as time-barred and the pendency of the proceedings in the High court as well as in this court be treated sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Subject to these observations, the S.L.Ps are dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the petitioner by tomorrow
