Radius Estates And Developers Private ... vs Nirav Vikram Maniar And Ors
- CitationInterlocutory Application No.1035/2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal condones a delay in re-filing a memo of appeal after defects were cured, on the ground that the reasons offered in the application — the voluminous documents, the need for re-execution by the authorised signatory, and the distance of the appellant's office — are sufficient cause for the delay.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Radius Estates & Developers Pvt. Ltd. .... Appellant
Vs.
Nirav Vikram Maniar & Ors. .... Respondents
Appearance: Shubham Saini and Dharav Shah, Advocate for the Appellant.
16th March, 2023
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 10.02.2023 and the Office after scrutiny of the Memo of Appeal on 16.02.2023, intimated the defects to the Appellant on the same day and returned the Memo of Appeal to the Appellant on 17.02.2023. The Appellant re-filed the Memo of Appeal on 03.03.2023. It is stated in the Interlocutory Application (IA) that the documents pertaining to the captioned Appeal and Applications are voluminous in nature, which consumed sufficient time and certain defects required some documents to be re-executed by the authorized signatory of the Appellant and as the Appellant's office is situated in Mumbai, it took some time in curing the defects. Hence, there is delay of 08 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