Anoop Sharma vs Ascent Etechnologies Private Limited & ...
- CitationInterlocutory Application No.151 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal condoned a delay of eight days in re-filing a Memo of Appeal, holding that the reasons stated in the application were sufficient for condonation of that delay in re-filing after defects were pointed out.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Anoop Sharma .... Appellant
Vs.
Ascent Etechnologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .... Respondents
Appearance: Upamanyu Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant.
10th January, 2024 (Virtual Mode)
This is an application to extend the time granted for curing the defects.
2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant e-filed the Memo of Appeal on 07.12.2023. The Office after scrutiny of the Memo of Appeal on 13.12.2023, intimated the defects to the Appellant on the same day. The Appellant re-filed the Memo of Appeal on 28.12.2023. It is stated in the Interlocutory Application (IA) that documents to be annexed along with the Appeal were voluminous in nature and compiling/ arranging the same for the purpose of filing had led to delay. Then there was an unfortunate technical impediment in the system. Therefore, due to all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is delay of 09 days in refiling the Memo of Appeal, so the same may be condoned. However, as per the Report of the Registry, the delay is of 08 days.
3. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and perused the averments made in the IA as well as Office report.
4. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant and for the reasons mentioned in the IA, which are sufficient, the delay in re- filing the Memo of Appeal is hereby condoned.
5. As prayed, list the case before the Hon'ble Bench under the heading 'for admission (fresh case)'.
6. With the aforesaid order, this IA stands disposed of.
(Peeush Pandey) Registrar
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free