Isolux Corsan India Engineering & ... vs Shailesh Verma Erstwhile Resolution ...
- CitationInterlocutory Application No.3316/2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The delay in re-filing a Memo of Appeal, after the Registry has returned it for curing defects, may be condoned where the reasons advanced in the interlocutory application (here, delay in receiving hard copies of relevant pages owing to the counsel and the liquidator being based in different cities) are found sufficient on consideration of the submissions and the Office report.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
In the matter of: Isolux Corsan India Engineering & Construction Pvt. Ltd., through its Liquidator CA Rajeev Bansal .... Appellant Versus Shailesh Verma (Erstwhile Resolution Professional for South East U.P. Power Transmission Co. Ltd.) & Ors. .... Respondents
Appearance: Komal Singh and Jagriti Dosi, Advocates for the Appellant.
13.09.2022
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 08.08.2022 and the Office after scrutiny of the Memo of Appeal on 16.08.2022, intimated the defects to the Appellant on the same day and returned the Memo of Appeal to the Appellant on 17.08.2022. The Appellant re-filed the Memo of Appeal on 05.09.2022. It is stated in the Interlocutory Application (IA) that there was a delay in receiving the hard copy of the relevant pages of the Appeal and the applications owing to the reason that the office of the Counsel is based in Delhi and the Liquidator of the Applicant/ Appellant is based in Yamunagar, Haryana. Hence, there is delay of 13 days in re-filing 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