1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2161 OF 2008 1. DSL Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the successor-in-interest of Datar Switchgear Limited, having its Registered Office at F-8, D Road, MIDC, Ambad, Nasik – 422 010. 2. Mr.Nilesh W. Khot, the Manager (Operations) of DSL Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., having his Office at 310, Shah and Nahar Industrial Estate, Dr.E.Moses Road, Opposite Toyota Show Room, Worli, Mumbai. .... Petitioners V/s. 1. The Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Nashik. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Nashik II Div. Jande Park, Takali Road, Nashik. 3. The Superintendent, Central Excise & Customs, Range IV, Nashik – II Division, C.F.C. Building, MIDC, Ambad, Nasik – 422 010. 4. Union of India, through the Secretary to the Department of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, having office at Aaykar Bhavan, 2nd Floor, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020. 2 5. ICICI Banking Corporation Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having office at G-2a, Nariman Bhavan, Ground Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. 6. L & T Limited, a Limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at L&T House, Ballard Estate, P.O. Box 278, Mumbai – 400 001. .....Respondents Mr.Shrihari Aney, Senior Advocate a/w Mrs.Swati Deshpande, Ms.Anjali Deshmukh instructed by Resl Legal for the petitioners. Mr.R.V.Desai, Senior Advocate, a/w A.S.Rao, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. ) 1. At the oral request of learned Senior Advocate Mr.Aney, respondent Nos.5 & 6 are permitted to be deleted from the present petition. Cause title be amended accordingly. 2. Heard. 3. Rule. 4. The learned Senior Advocate Mr.Desai, waives service of rule for respondent Nos.1 to 4. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken 3 up for final hearing and disposal. 5. By filing this petition, the petitioner-company has challenged the order passed by appellate authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction dated 23-03-2007 passed in Appeal No.52 of 2007, by which the appellate authority has condoned the delay of seven days in filing the appeal. 6. The respondent i.e. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, has filed the said appeal against the order of BIFR dated 05-12-2006 in Case No.261/2001. Since there was a delay in filing the appeal, miscellaneous application No.98 of 2007 was preferred by the respondent. The appellate authority had passed the following order in the said miscellaneous application. “Heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. Issue Notice. Appellant to serve the parties and file affidavit of service. Appellant filed M.A.No.98 of 2007 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Delay condoned. M.A. No.98/2007 is disposed of. List on 18-05- 2007. 7. Against the said order, the petitioner herein has preferred review application bearing Miscellaneous Application No.200 of 2007 for reviewing the said order on the ground that the order condoning the delay may be recalled as the same was passed without hearing the petitioner. The said review application came to be dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable, as well as on the ground that delay upto 15 days can be 4 condoned, as the appeal is filed beyond 45 days but the same is filed within 60 days and therefore, the delay of 15 days can be condoned, as against that, in the instant case, there is a delay of 7 days in filing the appeal and the same is required to be condoned. It is the aforesaid order which is impugned at the instance of the petitioner. 8. The learned Senior Advocate Mr.Aney for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the order of condonation of delay has been passed without hearing the petitioner and therefore, without giving an opportunity of being heard, the appellate authority should not have condoned the delay. On the other hand, the learned Senior Advocate Mr.Desai for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that there is a delay of seven days and considering the facts & circumstances of the case when the appellate authority has condoned the delay, this Court may not interfere with the said order. However, Mr.Desai conceded that before condoning the delay, all the concerned parties are required to be given an opportunity of being heard. 9. We have gone through the orders in question. We have also gone through the averments made in the petition. It is no doubt true that as observed by the appellate authority that if the appeal is filed within 60 days, the appeal can be entertained by condoning the delay, as the appellate authority has the power to condone the delay upto a particular 5 period. However, in our view, even in such circumstances, the concerned party against whom the order is to be passed is required to be heard and the contention of such party is also required to be taken into consideration at the time of passing final order in this behalf. Even there is nothing in the review order to show that at the time of deciding miscellaneous application No.98 of 2007, the petitioner was heard at the time of considering the application for condonation of delay. 10. It is no doubt true that the appellate authority has jurisdiction to condone delay upto 15 days and in the instant case, the delay is seven days and therefore, the appellate authority has power to condone the delay. However, in our view, even if there is a delay of one day, at least other side is required to be heard on the application for condonation of delay and thereafter, appropriate orders can be passed in connection with the condonation of delay. Simply because delay upto particular days can be condoned, is no ground for dispensing with the procedure of hearing other side and right of hearing to other side cannot be said to be dispensed with. In our view, the appellate authority should have heard the other side before passing any order on the application of condonation of delay and thereafter, the appellate authority could have passed the appropriate orders as deemed fit, as the principle of natural justice has to be complied with before passing any order. 6 11. The learned Advocate Mr.Desai for the respondents submitted that he has no objection if the delay condonation application is heard de novo after giving an opportunity of bearing heard to the present petitioner. The impugned order passed below Miscellaneous Application No.98 of 2007 is hereby set aside on the limited ground. The Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi, shall now take afresh decision on the Miscellaneous Application No.98 of 2007 on its own merits and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. Needless to say that the appellate authority shall decide the said application after considering the points raised by both the sides and may take appropriate decision in accordance with law after considering the available material on record. Rule is accordingly made absolute only to the aforesaid extent. 12. The learned Senior Advocate Mr.Desai, submitted that the appeal itself is fixed of hearing before the aforesaid Appellate authority on 24-09-2008. The Appellate authority may accordingly decide the condonation application before taking the appeal for hearing and delay application may be decided first without any further delay on its own merits so that ultimately if the delay is condoned, the appellate authority can proceed further with the hearing of appeal on merits. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )