01Facts
The petitioner Society challenged the Joint Registrar’s order rejecting its claim under Section 64 of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, for recovery of ₹2,17,476 with interest.
¶ 1–3It filed a statutory appeal under Section 78(2), but the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as 21 days late because no application for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit, had been filed.
¶ 1–3The Society sought judicial review, contending that it should have been given an opportunity to file such an application.
¶ 1–302Issues
i.Whether the Tribunal acted properly in dismissing the appeal for a 21-day delay without giving the Society an opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay.
¶ 1–2, 6ii.Whether the Tribunal’s order should be set aside and the matter remitted for consideration of a condonation application.
¶ 6–703Law Applied
The relevant statutory framework included Section 64 and Section 78(2) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, governing the underlying claim and appeal, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, invoked in relation to condonation of delay.
¶ 3–4The Court applied the principle that, in the circumstances of this case, a short delay should not be dealt with hyper-technically: the Tribunal should have afforded an opportunity to file a proper condonation application and then considered it in accordance with law.
¶ 6Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 Section 64Section 78
Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5
04Reasoning
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely because it was 21 days late and no condonation application with an affidavit had been filed.
¶ 6The High Court considered that the matter had been argued by a Society member and that the delay was limited.
¶ 6In those circumstances, it held that the Tribunal should have directed the petitioner to file an appropriate application rather than dismissing the appeal on that procedural ground.
¶ 6The Court did not decide whether the delay should ultimately be condoned; that question was left to the Tribunal.
05Holding
The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and remitted the matter.
¶ 7–8The petitioner was directed to appear before the Tribunal with an affidavit-supported application for condonation of delay, which the Tribunal must consider and decide in accordance with law, uninfluenced by its earlier order, preferably within 45 days of production of a copy of the High Court’s order.
¶ 7–8The petition was disposed of.
¶ 7–8Original Court PDF
SHIKSHIT SWAROJGAR UDYOG CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,vsANIL KUMAR BANAJ, VA.SA.NI.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
