- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. WRIT PETITION NO.1626 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s appearances, Court’s orders order or directions ----------------------------------------------------- ¦ Mr.D.D.Madon i/b Ricab Chand K. ¦ for the Petitioner. ¦ Mr.C.N.Srinivasan with ¦ Mr.G.Hariharan for the Respondent. ¦ ¦ ¦ CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & ¦ J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. ¦ DATED: 24TH JULY, 2008 P.C.: Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By the order impugned in the petition the tribunal has declined to condone the delay of 44 days in filing the appeal. Even if we agree with the finding of the tribunal that the delay was not properly explained, in our opinion, considering the law laid down by the - 2 - Supreme Court in the matter of exercise of jurisdiction of the court in the matter of condonation of delay, in our opinion, the tribunal should have taken a liberal view and condoned the delay. The court has to exercise its discretion always in favour of advancing remedy and not closing the remedy. In our opinion, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) & (b). (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)