CESTAT - Bar Vs Registry
Bar shall not be caused hardship by Registry by set of procedure not prescribed by Judicial Manual
THERE was a strange case recently before the Principal Bench of the CESTAT at New Delhi. An advocate mentioned that the Registry failed to discharge its duty according to the procedure prescribed by Chapter 4 of Judicial Manual in respect of receipt of appeal memo for which members of the Bar are harassed. He submitted that he was compelled to file application for condonation of delay by the Registry.
President of the Bar, RK Jain submitted that codified procedure is prescribed by Chapter 4 of Judicial manuals which is to be read with Rule 11(4) of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for harmonious construction of the procedural aspect of filing and scrutiny of appeal by the Registry. Keeping in view statutory right of the appellant the Judicial Manual in chapter 4 has designed procedure which should not be defeated by the Registry which otherwise deprives appellants to exercise their right to appeal. If there is any defect in appeal, in terms of the procedure prescribed by Rule 4.03 of Chapter 4 of Judicial Manual, that defect may be intimated to the appellant for curing the same without compulsion since curable defects do not take away right to appeal. Therefore, such valuable right should not be casually denied on flimsy ground of technicalities without scrutiny according to procedure prescribed by Judicial Manual.
The Tribunal Bench took note of the difficulties expressed by the Bar. The Bench observed, "We hope members of the Bar shall not be caused hardship by the Registry by a set of procedure not prescribed by Judicial Manual. With this, we conclude the matter stating that Registry is to act according to the procedure laid down in Chapter-4 of Judicial Manual and prevent further discontent of Bar".
Hope the Registry gets the message, not the one at Delhi alone but other places too.