Moolsons Holding Pvt Ltd vs Zennal Construction Pvt Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1441 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal dismisses the appeal for non-prosecution where, after the appellant's counsel was permitted to withdraw and the appellant was directed to engage a new legal representative, the Registry informed the appellant by speed post and email, and no one appeared on the appellant's behalf on the adjourned dates, the Tribunal inferring that the appellant is no longer interested in pursuing the appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Moolsons Holding Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant
Vs.
Zenal Construction Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent
Present:
For Appellant: Mr. Daksh Kadian, Advocate For Respondent:
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
23.05.2022: The following order was passed on 27.01.2022:-
"Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant on I.A. No. 266 of 2022 for seeking permission to withdraw the Vakalatnama in the instant Appeal.
Considering the submissions of Learned Counsel for the Appellant, the I.A. No. 266 of 2022 is allowed.
The Office of the Registry is directed to inform the Appellant to engage the new Legal Representative.
List the Appeal „For Direction‟ on 7th March, 2022."
On the adjourned date i.e. 07.03.2022 the following order was passed:-
From the perusal of the order dated 27.01.2022 it appears that the I.A. No. 266 of 2022 was allowed and further the Office of the Registry was directed to inform the Appellant to engage the new Legal Representative.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1441 of 2019 1 Further, Office note reveals that the Office of the Registry has complied the order dated 27.01.2022 and sent the information through Speed post as well as email also to the Appellant.
List the Appeal „For Direction‟ on 13th April, 2022 for appearance of Legal Representative of the Appellant."
As per the office records, not only the information has been delivered to
the Appellant through email but also it has been delivered through speed post.
Despite best effort having been made, no one has put in appearance on behalf
of the Appellant, therefore, it appears that they are no more interested in
pursuing this Appeal.
In such circumstance, the present Appeal is dismissed for non-
prosecution.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
sa/rr
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1441 of 2019 2
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