Sunderlal Laxman Mahyaanshi Vs. Appellate Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- bombay stamp act, 1958. schedule 1, article 36: [y.r. meena, cj & d.a. mehta & a.s. dave, jj] deed of mortgage liability to pay stamp duty held, any instruments in respect of transactions, relating to loans and advances, loans and mortgages, cash credit or overdraft bonds, agreements of pawn or pledge and letters of hypothecation executed by farmers for agricultural and land development purposes in favour of all commercial bank etc. are entitled to remission of entire duty chargeable under the stamp act with effect on and from 1.4.1979 under government notification dated 23.3.1979. thus, where loan was granted by bank of india under agricultural finance scheme towards purchase of air compressors, drilling rods and other accessories. use of the air compressors, drilling rods and other accessories in case of applicant who is a farmer can only be for purpose of drilling a bore-well for purpose of irrigation in process of carrying on agricultural activities. thus, it is apparent that loan was availed of by applicant-farmer for agricultural and land development purposes because a bore-well would go to increase the utility of agricultural land by ensuring round the year irrigation. the instrument in question would therefore fall within scope of complete remission granted to instrument of mortgage under government notification dated 23.3.1979 and hence not liable to stamp duty under article 36 of schedule i of the act. - , that he had given his papers to the advocate, but the advocate failed to prepare the appeal in time, has not been considered.s.a. bobde, j.1. rule, returnable forthwith.ms vasanti kundar waives service for the respondents. heard by consent.2. this petition is directed against the order of the appellate authority refusing to condone the delay of a period of about 30 days in filing the appeal.3. it is obvious from the application for condonation of delay and the order that the main reason advanced by the petitioner, viz., that he had given his papers to the advocate, but the advocate failed to prepare the appeal in time, has not been considered. the appellate authority has merely observed that there is no sufficient cause. the reason why the petitioner asked for condonation of delay and the appellate authority's views on the reason given by the petitioner ought to have been apparent from the order itself.4. moreover, the appellate authority has committed a serious error in observing that the order of the controlling authority from which the appeal was filed was per incuriam and contrary to the judgment of the supreme court. if the appellate authority had refused to condone the delay, there was no occasion for it to comment on the merits of the order. having regard to these circumstances, it is appropriate in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order.5. accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority for a fresh decision, in accordance with law. the parties are at liberty to file additional affidavits as may be advised. the appellate authority shall decide the application for condonation of delay not later than 30 days from the date the parties appear before it. the parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority on september 18, 2008.6. the rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.