MC 361/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. None appears for the other responde nts. The applicant, by the present application, is praying for condonation of delay o f 630 days in preferring the appeal against the award dated 4.7.2006 passed by t he learned Member, MACT, Barpeta in MAC Case No. 38(B)/1993. By the said judgment three MAC cases were decided being MAC Case Nos. 37(B)/1993 (2006), 38(B)/1993 and 58(B)/1993. The other two appeals filed against the common judgment and award together with the application for condonation of delay were also dismissed as this Court refus ed to condone the delay as the applicant has filed to explain the delay caused. The grounds on which, according to the applicant Insurance Company, the delay ha s occurred is narrated in Para 4 of the application. In Para 4 of the application it has been stated that the copy of the judgment da ted 4.7.2006 was received on 16.8.2006 and sent to the Regional Office on 29.8.2 006 and thereafter the records were sent to the engaged counsel seeking legal op inion on 27.9.2006, who, however could not furnished his opinion because he was out of station and ultimately furnished the same on 24.11.2006. According to the applicant being not satisfied with the opinion of the engaged counsel sent the file to another counsel for further opinion on 25.12.2006 and thereafter the lea rned counsel asked for some more documents on 19.12.2006, which were furnished t o the learned counsel on 23.3.2007. Thereafter the applicant company for ’some o fficial purpose’ took away the file from the learned counsel which was given bac k to the learned counsel only in the month of October, 2007 for filing the appea l and accordingly the memo of appeal was filed. There is no explanation for the period from 19.12.2006 to 23.3.2007 and from 4.4 .2007 to October 2007. Nothing has been stated why the required documents could not be made available to the counsel for more than three months. The reason for taking away the file from the learned counsel and keeping it in the office has a lso not been explained. There is no proper explanation for the delay caused for the said period. In view of the above, the Misc. case stands dismissed.