Orissa Industries Limited vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No.594 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal recalled an order dismissing an appeal for want of prosecution where the appellant's authorised representative had sent an email to the Registrar seeking an adjournment, which was not placed before the Tribunal before dismissal; on that basis it held that sufficient cause had been shown and recalled the dismissal, allowing the restoration application and listing the appeal for admission.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
want of prosecution on 10th February, 2020. It transpires that
a restoration application was sent by post on 16th March,
2020. The Appellant has prayed for restoration of the appeal
contending that the Authorized Representative of the
Company had to go to Delhi to attend another meeting on
account of which he could not appear on the date fixed. In
this regard, it was also contended that the Authorized
Representative had sent an email dated 10th February, 2020 to
the Registrar of the Tribunal requesting for an adjournment.
2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Respondent has opposed the restoration application
contending that due diligence was not observed by the
Appellant and, in any case, the application for restoration had
been filed beyond 30 days which cannot be entertained unless
and until an application for condonation of delay is filed.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we
find that admittedly an email was sent by the Authorized 3
Representative of the Appellant to the Registrar of this
Tribunal seeking an adjournment. The said email was not
placed before the Tribunal and accordingly the appeal was
dismissed for want of prosecution.
4. In our opinion, cause shown is sufficient and for the
said reasons the order dated 10th February, 2020 dismissing
the appeal for want of prosecution is recalled. Misc.
Application no.142 of 2020 is allowed.
5. Let the appeal be listed for admission through video
conferencing or through physical appearance depending on
the prevailing situation at 11.30 a.m. on 17th June, 2020.
Parties will take necessary instructions from the Registrar of
this Tribunal 48 hours before the date fixed.
6. The present matter was heard through video conference
due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible to
sign a copy of this order nor a certified copy of this order
could be issued by the registry. In these circumstances, this
order will be digitally signed by the Presiding Officer on
behalf of the bench and all concerned parties are directed to
act on the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties will act 4
on production of a digitally signed copy sent by fax and/or
email.
Justice Tarun Agarwala
TARUN Digitally signed by TARUN AGARWAL Presiding Officer DN: c=IN, st=Uttar Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=a0e08b2d80e9d23c2c2a a3e16780d684adad6bc9e810de2
AGAR d7b0c28efd35557c9, postalCode=211001, street=B/ A,NYAYA MARG ALLAHABAD, serialNumber=095f8b286bb0b1c Dr. C. K. G. Nair d07ff676611f4f5e7999727d404aa
WAL 38ca422f9d3529bdb8a3, Member o=Personal, cn=TARUN AGARWAL Date: 2020.06.10 23:35:40 +05'30'
Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member
10.6.2020 RHN
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