Naxpar Pharma Private Limited vs Sanjai Kumar Gupta
- CitationInterlocutory Application No.2208/2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal condoned a delay in re-filing a memorandum of appeal after office defects were cured, holding that the reasons given in the interlocutory application (the authorised representative's residence in Kolkata, the company's base in Mumbai, and the time taken to circulate the papers for signature and physical filing through local counsel in Delhi) were sufficient cause, so that the period of delay could be condoned and the appeal listed for admission as a fresh case.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
In the matter of: Naxpar Pharma Pvt. Ltd. .... Appellant Versus Sanjai Kumar Gupta .... Respondent
Appearance: Rahul Parasrampuria, Advocate for the Appellant.
18.07.2022
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 17.06.2022, intimated the defects to the Appellant on the same day and returned the Memo of Appeal to the Appellant on 22.06.2022. The Appellant re-filed the Memo of Appeal on 06.07.2022. It is stated in the Interlocutory Application (IA) that due to the fact Authorised Representative of the Appellant residing at Kolkata and the Appellant Company is based at Mumbai and the physical filing of the Appeal was done by local counsel residing at Delhi. The Authorised Representative after preparing the Application sent the same to the Mumbai by courier for signing and verification. Thereafter, the same was sent to local counsel in Delhi for physical filing, which took time. Hence, there is delay of 12 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