S Kannan vs Asian Paints Ltd And Others
- CitationRestoration application No.4 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A party seeking restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution has no right to restoration; the tribunal's discretion to restore must be exercised on the basis of reasons explained for the non-appearance, and a restoration application that offers no such explanation, relying instead on the asserted duty of the court to allow it, is liable to be dismissed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
In the matter of: S. Kannan Applicant Vs Asian Paints Ltd & Ors Respondent For Appellant: Mr T.N. Durga Prasad, Mr. Prakash, Mr. Shivalok Yashovardhan, Advocates. For Respondent: Ms Shweta Gupta, YP for CCI. ORDER
15.03.2023: I.A. No.1004/2023 have been filed for condonation of delay in
refiling of Restoration Petition. Delay of 38 days has occurred in refiling the
restoration petition. The reasons for delay has been explained in IA. We are
satisfied with the reasons explained in the IA. Accordingly delay in refiling
the restoration petition is condoned.
Heard Mr. T.N. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant on
restoration petition. The present restoration application No.04/2023 has
been filed with a prayer to restore the Competition Appeal (AT) No.47/2022 2
which stood dismissed on 01.11.2022 due to non-prosecution. In the
Restoration Application at para 18 the applicant has stated as under:-
"18. It is submitted that even when there is such an absence, the absence
of representation from a side on a single day does not, in practice, result
in summary disposal and dismissed of the entire case, in the High
Courts, as the case is again posted to another day under the category of
cases for dismissal, when the party concerned is permitted to explain the
absence and the case filed by appellant is continued to be heard without
being dismissed."
However, in the restoration application nowhere it has been stated the
reasons for non-appearance when the appeal was dismissed due to non-
prosecution. It is true that the Court is taking lenient view in the matter of
restoration application but as a matter of right it cannot claim to restore the
appeal. In the restoration application no reasons have been explained for
non- appearance rather averment has been made that the Court is duty
bound in allowing the restoration application.
We donot find any reasons to allow the restoration application. The
restoration application is accordingly dismissed.
(Justice Rakesh Kumar) Member (Judicial)
(Dr. Alok Srivastava) 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