Mr. Mukesh Mangale & Ors vs Mr. Shailesh Verma Resolution ...
- CitationInterlocutory Application No.4372/2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal condoned a seven-day delay in re-filing a memo of appeal after defects were cured, holding that the delay was sufficiently explained by the voluminous nature of the appeal (twelve volumes), the Appellant's location in Maharashtra while counsel was in New Delhi, and the time taken to courier affidavits and documents, and that it was neither intentional nor deliberate; the appeal was accordingly listed for admission as a fresh case.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Mukesh Mangale & Ors. .... Appellants
Vs.
Shailesh Verma, Resolution Professional of Lavasa Corporation Ltd. & Ors. .... Respondents
Appearance: Kinjal Sheth, Advocate for the Appellants.
25th September, 2023
This is an application to extend the time granted for curing the defects.
2. The facts of the case are that the Appellants e-filed the Memo of Appeal on 19.08.2023. The Office after scrutiny of the Memo of Appeal on 23.08.2023, intimated the defects to the Appellants on the same day. The Appellants re-filed the Memo of Appeal on 06.09.2023. It is stated in the Interlocutory Application (IA) that the Appeals are voluminous in nature running into 12 volumes and thus it took some time to cure the defects. Further the Appellant is based in the State of Maharashtra and Advocates are in New Delhi, therefore, considerable amount of time spent in sending the affidavit and other documents via courier. Hence, there is delay of 07 days in re-filing the Memo of Appeal, which is neither intentional nor deliberate, so the same may be condoned.
3. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and perused the averments made in the IA as well as Office report.
4. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the Appellants 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