APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI MP-PBPT-352/CHN/2024 Review IN FPA-PBPT-1222/CHN/2020 M/s V.P.C. & Co. … Review Appellant Versus The Initiating Officer (BPU)

Chennai … Respondent Advocates / Authorized Representatives who appeared:

For the Review Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunder Khatri, Advocate, Mr. Naman Khatri, Mr. Ravi Grover, Ms. Chetna Aggarwal &

Mr. Dhanaram, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Anish Dhingra, SPP CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA : MEMBER

ORDER

07.01.2026 This order would address the Review Application preferred by the appellant against the order dated 07.02.2024 passed by this Tribunal dismissing the application for Condonation of Delay (CoD). The delay in filling of the appeal was of 806 days. However, prior to approaching this Tribunal, the appellant had preferred the Writ Petition before the High Court of Madras on 20.09.2018 and was dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 23.10.2019 with liberty to file appeal and for the aforesaid purpose period intervening after institution of the Writ Petition before the High Court i.e. 29.09.2018 till the date on which certified copy of the order is issued would be excluded. This Tribunal thus found justification for CoD till the copy of the order passed by the High Court of Madras was obtained which according to the Review Application was in the month of November, 2019 and accordingly appeal should have been preferred within the period of limitation where the period from 29.08.2018 ( the date of impugned order) till 20.09.2018 (the date of filing of the Writ Petition) was to be counted for the purpose of limitation as per the order of the High Court of Madras.

2. The Review Applicant filed the application for CoD, inter alia, referring to the judgement of the High Court of Delhi in the case of J.M. Kohli vs. Madras Mohan Sahni in RFA No. 207 of 2012. The Counsel was engaged in the month of February, 2020 to defend the case and accordingly entire set of paper books were handed over to the Ld. Counsel and thereupon the period of Covid-19 pandemic remained the reason for non- filing of the appeal immediately thereupon. In the application for CoD, the appellant did not specify any reason for filing of the appeal with delay other than that the appellant could engage Lawyer in the month of February, 2020 but no explanation has been given as to why the appeal could not be filed immediately or within a reasonable time after obtaining a copy of the order of the High Court knowingly that limitation of filing of the appeal before this Tribunal is of 45 days and if the period of litigation before the High Court is excluded, period of 45 days would expire in the month of December, 2019 itself. No explanation of delay whatsoever was given in the application so as to be taken basis to condone it and otherwise this Tribunal cannot go beyond the pleadings and make out a case for the litigant, rather, it may not be permissible otherwise.

3. The Review Application has now been filed against the order dated 07.02.2024 without showing any material irregularity or mistake apparent on the face of the record for review of the order. The Review Application has been filed taking new pleas which were not part of the pleadings to the application for CoD. It was submitted that the appellant remained out of the country due to frequent travels in the month of October, 2019 and from time to time till November, 2020. It was even for the partner till the month of February, 2020. However, those facts were not part of the pleadings of the application for CoD and by way of Review Application new case cannot be framed. It is more so when the fact about non-

availability of the appellant was in the knowledge at the time of filing of the application for CoD and thereby it was not a new fact came to the knowledge of the Review Applicant subsequent to the impugned order.

4. The perusal of the grounds to seek review of the Order shows it to mainly on the ground t