Supreme Transport Organisation Pvt Ltd vs Maharashtra Airport Development ...
- CitationInterlocutory Application No.3514/2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal condoned a delay of 24 days in re-filing a Memo of Appeal after defects were notified, on the ground that the defect sheet did not reach the appellant's registered email, the appellant's counsel had to procure it from the Registry, and the approvals and annexures needed from the appellant's Mumbai office took time. Those reasons, found sufficient on the material placed before the Tribunal, justify extending time for curing registry defects, and the matter is listed afresh for admission.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Supreme Transport Organisation Pvt. Ltd. .... Appellant
Vs.
Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd. .... Respondent
Appearance: Riddhi Jain, Advocate for the Appellant.
8th August, 2023
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 23.06.2023 and the Office after scrutiny of the Memo of Appeal on 30.06.2023, intimated the defects to the Appellant on the same day. The Appellant re-filed the Memo of Appeal on 31.07.2023. It is stated in the Interlocutory Application (IA) that though the defects were marked by the Registry, however, the Appellant had not received the defects on its registered email id and after co-ordinating with the Registry, the counsel for the Appellant had procured the defect sheet. Whereafter, seeking approvals, procuring annexures and other relevant documents from the Appellant which is situated in Mumbai, Maharashtra, took some time. Hence, there is delay of 24 days in refiling 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
Connected matters
Decided by the same order
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