Chattisgarh High Court
M/S A.W.X. Cacon vs Manoj Patel on 1 September, 2025
1/3
Digitally
signed by
AVANISH
KUMAR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
PATHAK
Date:
2025.09.03
10:32:19
MAC No. 90 of 2025
+0530
M/S A.W.X. CACON versus MANOJ PATEL
MAC/967/2023
Order Sheet
01/09/2025 Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Adv. for appellants in MAC No.
90/2025 and for respondents in MAC No. 967/2023.
Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsiya, Adv. for appellant in MAC No.
967/2023 and respondents in MAC No. 90/2025.
Heard on I.A. No. 1/2024, application for seeking
condonation of delay of 587 days in filing instant MAC.
Mr. Harsh Vardhan, learned counsel for the appellants
submits that in MAC No. 14/EC Act,2022/Non-fatal, notice
issued to aforesaid appellants, were not served, despite that, ex-
parte order was passed against them. He further submits that,
appellants came to know about passing of impugned order when
execution notice was served on them. Therefore, delay has
occurred in filing instant appeal, which may be condoned.
Per contra, Mr. Tulsiyan, learned counsel for the
respondent submits that, the appellants were well aware about
passing of impugned judgment on 24-2-2023, as notice was
served to them in MAC No. 967/2023 on 27-7-2023. Despite
that, they filed instant MAC after lapse of more than one year.
Hence delay may not be condoned or it be condoned by
imposing heavy cost on the appellants.
When specific question was posed to learned counsel for
the appellants, as to when notice was received by them, he
could not apprise the Court.
Though it is settled law that to condone delay in filing an
appeal, liberal approach should be adopted by the Court, but
without mentioning any appropriate reason, application for
condonation of delay has been filed by the appellants. Hence in
the interest of justice, I.A. No. 1/2024 is allowed and delay in
filing the instant appeal is condoned, subject to appellants'
paying cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondents, prior to next date
of hearing.
Heard on admission.
This appeal is admitted for hearing on following
substantial questions of law :-
1. Whether the Commissioner erred in law
in holding that there is employee and
employer relation between claimant and non-
applicants ?
2. Whether, the Commissioner committed
error of law in passing ex-parte order ?
3. Whether the income of the injured
assessed by the Commissioner is on higher
side ?
Also heard on I.A. No. 1/2023, application for condonation
of delay of 52 days in filing instant appeal.
On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in
the I.A. No. 1/2023, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the
instant appeal is condoned in the interest of justice.
This appeal is admitted for hearing on following
substantial question of law :-
1. Whether granting interest by the
Commissioner at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of application, is perverse and
illegal ?
2. Whether, the Commissioner was
justified in not awarding any amount towards
penalty ?
Issue notice to the respondents in both the appeals.
Since Mr. Tulsiyan and Mr. Harsh Vardhan accept notice
on behalf of their respective respondents, therefore, issuance of
notice to them is dispensed with.
List both the appeals for final hearing in motion hearing
list in the week after next.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
JUDGE
Pathak
