Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: Dinesh Mehta, J. allowed a petition for correction and amendment of the plaint due to inadvertent errors.

In the present case, the application of the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 had been rejected by the trial court, barring it under the limitation law. The petitioner, therefore, had approached the present bench for allowing the amendment of the plaint.

The Counsel representing the petitioner, AK Jain, has filed the application under Order VI Rule 17 and has submitted before the bench, that the trial court erred in rejecting the application as time-barred.

The High Court, upon perusal of the records, allowed the application to make changes to the plaint and stated that the order of the trial court was not in accordance with the law and in the interest of justice. The Court pointed out that the suit was pending since a long time and changes to the plaint would be innocuous, directing the petitioners to be allowed to make the changes upon payment of an amount of Rs 10, 000 to the respondents.[Mahaveer v. Dilip, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 2720, decided on 03-09-2019]

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai: Assessee preferred this appeal before P. Dinesha, J., where assessee was only aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the First Appellate Authority, without condoning the delay in filing the first appeal.

Assesse for explaining delay mentioned that one of the partners of the appellant firm had personal problems. Per contra, it was submitted by the respondent that the delay in filing the first appeal was nine months and the power to condone the delay after the end of 90 days lies only with the Court thus, impugned order should sustain. It was contended by the assessee that sufficient cause was shown and that the Courts had held that a liberal approach should be in condoning of delay. Lest a deliberation is shown for delay the explanation for delay needs to be accepted.

Tribunal was of the view that appeal was filed under Section 129-A of the Customs Act and Section 129-A (5) empowered this forum to condone the delay of any number of days. Section 129 does not authorize this forum to enter the domain of the first appellate authority since the scope of appellate jurisdiction was limited and to assume the jurisdiction of the first appellate authority by this forum was not authorized. It was observed that the first appellate authority had exercised its discretion in accordance with limitation law and thus, this forum could not have judged the correctness of the same. Therefore, this appeal was dismissed. [Vikgnesh Enterprises v. Commissioner (GST), 2019 SCC OnLine CESTAT 55, Order dated 16-04-2019]