Oyster Steel & Iron Pvt. Ltd vs Smw Metal Private Limited
- CitationRESTORATION APPLICATION NO. 3 OF 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may condone a delay of a few days in filing a restoration application where the grounds given in the application are satisfactory. Where notice has been duly served on the sole respondent at one of the addresses given, the Tribunal may proceed to hear a restoration application in the respondent's absence, notwithstanding that a second address has returned notice unserved. Where the appellant's non-appearance resulting in dismissal for non-prosecution is found to be due to a bona fide mistake, the Tribunal may restore the appeal to its original file.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
08.08.2022: In filing the Restoration Application 4 days has occurred and as
such an application for condonation of delay has been filed. We have perused
the grounds mentioned in the Application and are satisfied with the reasons
explained in the Application. The delay of 4 days in filing the Restoration
Petition is condoned.
In the present Restoration Application on 06.07.2022, Notice was
directed to be issued to Respondent through speed post. As such notices
through speed post were issued to address of the Respondent. In the present
Restoration Petition though there is only one Respondent but two addresses
have been given. Notice issued through speed post have been duly served on
sole Respondent at his 1st address, however, notice had returned back
unserved on 2nd address.
Since notice has already been effected on Respondent and despite that
none has appeared on behalf of the Respondent, the Tribunal is of the opinion
that Restoration Petition can be heard even in absence of Respondent.
Learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Rajat Jain by way of referring to
notice and list of dates and events as mentioned in the Restoration Petition
submitted that due to bona fide mistake of the Appellant, the Appeal was
dismissed due to non-prosecution. Considering the facts regarding non-
appearance of the appellant due to bona fide mistake it is directed to restore
the Appeal. Accordingly, the Restoration Petition is allowed. The Appeal i.e.
Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.1128/2019 is restored to its original file.
Put up on 27th September, 2022.
(Justice Rakesh Kumar) Member (Judicial)
(Dr Ashok Kumar Mishra) Member (Technical_ Bm/gc
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