Kathiravan Pipes Pvt. Ltd. vs CESTAT

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.—The writ petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal in Final Order No.

738 of 2006, dated 14-8-2006 in E/Appeal No. 301/2006 whereby the order passed by the second respondent dated 19-1-2006 non-suiting the

petitioner for condoning the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal has been confirmed.

The reason stated by the Tribunal was that the delay was sought to be explained by the petitioner by submitting that one Mr. Kathiravan, the

Managing Director of the company was under medical treatment for 10 days from 7-11-2005, that the medical certificate would be produced at

the time of hearing and that however no such certificate was produced by the petitioner before the second respondent. On that reason, the second

respondent had refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal further found that the petitioner produced a medical certificate dated

17-11-2005 whereunder it was certified that Mr. Kathiravan was suffering from viral fever and was advised to rest from 7-11-2005 to 17-11-

2005. The said certificate was for the period from 7-11-2005 to 17-11-2005 and the delay for the subsequent period has not been explained by

the petitioner is the reason given by the Tribunal for non-suiting the petitioner for condoning the delay.

I have heard learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record.

I am of the view that the literal interpretation given on the certificate that the petitioner was advised to rest from 7-11-2005 to 17-11-2005

cannot be legally an appreciable finding. It is the opinion of the doctor that the petitioner was required to take rest for that period. That does not

mean that on the expiry of the last date mentioned in the medical certificate, the person, who suffered certain viral infection, has immediately got

rejuvenated with full rigour and has to attend all his office work.

It is well settled principle of law that the technicalities and substantial justice are pitted against each other and the Courts would always lean in

favour of substantial justice rather than technicalities for non-suiting the petitioner on the ground that the appeal has not been filed within the time

stipulated in spite of the fact that the authorities are conferred with the power to condone the delay. Likewise, the limitation prescribed is not for

destruction of statutory right and is only to give finality without protracting the matter endlessly.

Here is the case where the petitioner sought for condoning the delay 25 days and a part of which has been explained by producing the medical

certificate. Hence, this Court is of the view that the second respondent ought to have condoned the delay and allowed the petitioner to have their

case decided on merits. But, that course has not been adopted and the order of the second respondent has also been confirmed by the Tribunal.

This Court is of the view that the orders of respondents 1 and 2 are to be set aside and the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned.

Accordingly, the orders of respondents 1 and 2 are set aside. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The second respondent is directed to

number, take the appeal on file and decide the issue on merits by following due process of law. The writ petition is allowed.

No costs. Consequently, the above MPS are dismissed.