Shri. Yarlagadda Madhu Mohan vs State Bank Of India & Anr
- CitationRestoration Application No. 26/2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may recall an order dismissing an appeal for want of prosecution where the appellant's counsel was unavoidably engaged before the Supreme Court and the appellant's participation was prevented by bad network connectivity, and where the reasons so given are found satisfactory.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) Restoration App No.26/2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.156/2024 (IA Nos.415, 416 & 417/2024) In the matter of: Shri. Yarlagadda Madhu Mohan ... Appellant V State Bank of India & Anr. ...Respondents WITH Restoration App No.27/2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.155/2024 (IA Nos.411 & 413/2024) In the matter of: Smt. Yarlagadda Padmavathi ... Appellant V State Bank of India & Anr. ...Respondents Present : For Appellant : Mr. Shwetank Singh, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Pranava Charan, Advocate for R1
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 27.10.2025:
These two company appeals, which are accompanied with Restoration Applications, being Restoration Application No. 26/2025 and Restoration Application No. 27/2025, respectively, where the Appellant has sought a recall of the order dated 20.02.2025, dismissing the company appeal for want of prosecution.
The reason for seeking Restoration has been assigned by the Appellant in para 3.1 it is on the ground that the learned counsel who was supposed to represent the cause of the Appellant, was on his legs before the Hon'ble Apex Court,
Restoration App Nos.26 & 27 2025 Page 1 of 2 coupled with the fact that, when he attempted to participate in the proceedings, he could not participate due to bad network connectivity. Having gone through the reasons given therein and finding the same to be satisfactory, the Restoration Application Nos. 26/2025 and 27/2025, would stand allowed. The order dated 20.02.2025, is recalled and the Company Appeal is restored to its original number.
The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that, owing to certain subsequent development, as a matter of fact these company appeals have been rendered infructuous. The aforesaid fact may be brought on record by him by filing of an affidavit within a period of one week from today.
List this Appeal on 10.12.2025.
[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)
[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical) AR/MS/AK
Restoration App Nos.26 & 27 2025 Page 2 of 2
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