H S Power Projects Private Limited vs Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: H.S. Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellants Versus Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Dhruv Gupta and Mr. Siddhant Singh, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Anand K. Ganesan, Mr. Utkarsh Singh and Mr. Parth Bhalla, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

13.05.2025: This appeal has been filed against the order dated

26.06.2024 by which order Rst.A/11(Ahm)2024 filed by the appellant has

been rejected. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that only reason for

rejecting restoration was that although verification was made at Ahmedabad

by the Advocate but the affidavit was shown to have been sworn at Odisha. In

paragraph 6 of the order following has been observed:-

"6. Moreover, the affidavit sworn in support of this application the place of affirmation is shown as Odisha and the application verification has also shown as place, Odisha. However, the application has been filed by the Applicant with it combined affidavit which is in continuation of the application after verification. The Application and affidavit was signed by the applicant on 08.04.2024 at Odisha. Whereas the same application was signed by the advocate on 09.04.2024 very next date of affirmation at Ahmedabad."

2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has referred to the verification affidavit

which is at page-89 of the paper book. From the aforesaid, it appears that the

application was signed by the Advocate at Ahmedabad on 09.04.2024. Ld.

Counsel for the appellant submits that only Advocate has signed at

Ahmedabad but the verification and affidavit both sworn at Odisha which was

signed by the applicant which was apparent from pages 89 to 90.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent sought to contend refer to para 3 of the

order and submits that affidavit which was sworn on Ranchi on 20.03.2024

that is after dismissal of the main case.

4. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. When

we look into page 89 of the paper book that is an application of the

restoration containing the verification and the affidavit it is clear that

Advocate has signed at Ahmedabad on 08.04.2024 whereas verification and

affidavit both are signed by the applicant at Odisha. Ld. Counsel for the

applicant has explained that the Advocate has after preparing the application

has sent it for verification and affidavit which was sworn at Odisha. We thus

are of view that present ground could not have been reason for rejecting the

restoration application.

5. In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the order dated 26.06.2024 revive

the Rst.A/11(Ahm)2024 to be heard on merits in accordance with law. We

2 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1744 of 2024 make it clear that we have not expressing any opinion on the merits of the

restoration application it is for the parties to make all their submissions.

With these observations, we dispose of the appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Arun Baroka] ember (Technical) harleen/NN

3 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1744 of 2024