Ramesh Shravan Jadhav vs M/S. Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction And ...
- CitationInterlocutory Application No.3750/2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal condoned a delay of ten days in re-filing a Memo of Appeal that had been returned for defects, holding that the reasons given in the interlocutory application (the appellant's residence in Mumbai, the time needed to finalise the appeal, and the translation of illegible or Marathi pages into English) were sufficient cause for the delay.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Ramesh Shravan Jadhav .... Appellant
Versus
Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction & Securitisation Company Ltd. & Anr. .... Respondents
Appearance: Milind Garg and Yaksh Garg, Advocates for the Appellant.
13.10.2022
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 07.09.2022 and the Office after scrutiny of the Memo of Appeal on 09.09.2022, intimated the defects to the Appellant on the same day and returned the Memo of Appeal to the Appellant on 29.09.2022. The Appellant re-filed the Memo of Appeal on 29.09.2022. It is stated in the Interlocutory Application (IA) that as the Appellant is a resident of Mumbai, Maharashtra it took time for the finalization of the Appeal and to remove all the defects including dim and translated pages from Marathi to English. Hence, there is delay of 10 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