Sajidabanu Firoz Kaliwala Proprietor ... vs Agarwal Mittal Concast Private Limited ...
- CitationInterlocutory Application No. 2065/2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
This order is a registrar's direction on an application to extend time for curing defects in a Memo of Appeal. It contains no stated reasoning beyond recording the facts and noting that the appellants were required to re-file within seven days of intimation of defects but did so 31 days later, after which the matter is simply listed for admission. No legal principle is articulated to be extracted. NO_RATIO: the order records facts and directs listing for admission without stating any reasoning or legal principle on which the disposal rests.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Sajidabanu Firoz Kaliwala Proprietor of M H Trading & Anr. .... Appellants
Versus Agarwal Mittal Concast Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .... Respondents
Appearance: None for the Appellants.
11.07.2022
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 Appellants filed the Memo of Appeal on 30.05.2022 and the Office after scrutiny of the Memo of Appeal on 01.06.2022, intimated the defects to the Appellants on the same day and returned the Memo of Appeal to the Appellants on 02.06.2022. The Appellants re-filed the Memo of Appeal on 08.06.2022. It is stated in the Interlocutory Application (IA) that 31 days' delay occurred due to resubmitting of legible copies of some annexures documents; to place some papers on portrait size; to change case title at NCLAT portal; and to affix court stamp etc., which is not deliberate and same is bonafide, hence, the same may kindly be condoned.
3. None appeared on behalf of the Appellants. Perused the averments made in the IA as well as Office report.
4. The Appellants were required to re-file the Memo of Appeal within seven days from the date of intimation of the defects. However, the Appellants re-filed the Memo of Appeal with a delay of 31 days, hence, the case may be placed before the Hon'ble Bench for appropriate orders. IA is disposed of accordingly.
5. List the case before the Hon'ble Bench under the heading 'for admission with defect (fresh case)'.
(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