Gokul Kripa Colonizers And Developers ... vs Radiant Hotels Private Limited
- CitationInterlocutory Application No.2262/2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's order rests on the principle that delay in re-filing a memorandum of appeal after its return by the Registry for curing defects may be condoned where the reasons given in the application, namely the non-availability of an authorised signatory at a distant location and the need to retype dim and illegible documents, are sufficient to explain the period of delay.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Gokul Kripa Colonizers and Development Pvt. Ltd. .... Appellant
Versus
Radiant Hotels Pvt. Ltd. .... Respondent
Appearance: Riya Thomas, Advocate for the Appellant.
19.07.2022
This hearing has been held through video conferencing.
This is an application to extend the time granted for curing the defects.
2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant filed the Memo of Appeal on 30.05.2022 and the Office after scrutiny of the Memo of Appeal on 10.06.2022, intimated the defects to the Appellant on the same day and returned the Memo of Appeal to the Appellant on 15.06.2022. The Appellant re-filed the Memo of Appeal on 07.07.2022. It is stated in the Interlocutory Application (IA) that signature of the Authorized signatory was required on the memorandum of Appeal with other documents and as the Authorized signatory is based in Jaipur, it took time to cure the defects. Also to the fact that there were some dim and illegible documents, which had to be typed. Hence, there is delay of 20 days in re-filing the Memo of Appeal, so the same may be condoned.
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