Rakesh Kumar vs Mr. Sumit Shukla Erstwhile Resolution ...
- CitationInterlocutory Application No.180 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal condoned a delay in re-filing a defective memo of appeal on the ground that the reasons stated in the application were sufficient, the delay being measured against the registry's report of 11 days rather than the 15 days claimed; no general principle is laid down beyond that the stated reasons, here the appellant's need to coordinate with counsel at a distance, were sufficient to extend time for curing defects.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Rakesh Kumar .... Appellant
Vs.
Sumit Shukla, Erstwhile Resolution Professional of Oliver Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .... Respondent
Appearance: Rahul Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant.
9th January, 2024 (Virtual Mode)
This is an application to extend the time granted for curing the defects.
2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant e-filed the Memo of Appeal on 01.12.2023. The Office after scrutiny of the Memo of Appeal on 11.12.2023, intimated the defects to the Appellant on the same day. The Appellant re-filed the Memo of Appeal on 29.12.2023. It is stated in the Interlocutory Application (IA) that as the Appellant being a resident of Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab had to coordinate with the Counsel in Delhi for documents, signing etc., it took some time in curing the defects. Hence, there is delay of 15 days in refiling the Memo of Appeal, so the same may be condoned. However, as per the Report of the Registry, the delay is of 11 days.
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