Raj Singhania vs Chinar Steel Segment Centre Pvt Ltd & Ors
- CitationInterlocutory Application No.1191/2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The tribunal condoned a four-day delay in re-filing a memorandum of appeal, holding that the delay was excused by the sufficiency of the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, namely the voluminous nature of the files, the involvement of multiple advocates, and other logistical difficulties in curing the office-notified defects within the stipulated time.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Raj Singhania Liquidator Gontermann-Peipers (India) Limited .... Appellant
Versus
Chinar Steel Segment Centre Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .... Respondents
Appearance: Gautam Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant.
26.04.2022
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 08.04.2022 and the Office after scrutiny of the Memo of Appeal on 11.04.2022, intimated the defects to the Appellant on the same day and returned the Memo of Appeal to the Appellant on 18.04.2022. The Appellant re-filed the Memo of Appeal on 22.04.2022. It is stated in the Interlocutory Application (IA) that due to voluminous nature of the files, multiple advocates in the case and other logistical difficulties, the defects could not be cured in the stipulated period, hence, there is delay of 04 days in refiling 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