Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 33 (BOM)

Iccon Oil & Specialities v. Union of India

2010-01-08

A.R.JOSHI, F.I.REBELLO

body2010
Judgment : ORAL JUDGMENT: (FERDINO I. REBELLO, J.) The petitioners are before this Court against the order dated 29th January, 2008 whereby the Appeal preferred by the petitioners herein has been disposed off on the ground that it is hopelessly barred by limitation. 2. The order by B.I.F.R. is dated 21st December, 2005. Considering Section 25 of the Act the limitation to prefer an Appeal is within 45 days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to the party who prefers an Appeal. 3. On behalf of the petitioners learned Counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Paam Pharmaceutical (Delhi) Ltd. vs. Union of India &Ors. Section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 which hereinafter referred to as the Act reads as under:- “25. Appeal.-- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Board made under this Act may, within forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority; Provided that the Appellate Authority may entertain any appeal after the said period of forty-five days but not after sixty days from the date aforesaid if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. (2) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Appellate Authority may, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, if he so desires, and after making such further inquiry as it deems fit, confirm, modify or set aside the order appealed against or remand the matter to the Board for fresh consideration.” A perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 25 would show that the limitation commences from the “date on which a copy of the order is issued to him”. This would contemplate that the Act itself requires that the copy of the order passed by the B.I.F.R. Is made available to the Appellant and it is only then the limitation will commence. 4. From the facts on record we do not find that the learned Appellate Authority addressed itself to that issue. The Appellate Authority has proceeded on the footing that the Appeal was filed on 18th September, 2006 whereas the order of the B.I.F.R., is dated 12th December, 2005. 4. From the facts on record we do not find that the learned Appellate Authority addressed itself to that issue. The Appellate Authority has proceeded on the footing that the Appeal was filed on 18th September, 2006 whereas the order of the B.I.F.R., is dated 12th December, 2005. It is true that on that day the petitioner before this Court and Appellant before the Appellate Authority was not represented. Not represented and/or exparte proceeding would not mean that the order was made available to the party concerned. The language in its plain and literal sense means a copy must be made available to the person. In other words that order must be made available on the very day when the order is passed or if it is not passed on the same day it must be made available to the party which would contemplate that the copy of the order is forwarded to the party. If the person is not present, then a copy of the order must be forwarded to the person. There is no other way that the expression “from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him” can be construed. When the Act uses an expression, that expression must be assigned its natural meaning. 5. In the instant case we find that the learned Appellate Authority has not addressed itself to the issue nor recorded a finding as to when the copy of the order was issued to the petitioner herein. In the light of that the impugned order is set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Appellate Authority for de novo consideration according to law after hearing the petitioner. 6. Rule made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.