Uti Employees Sai Samruddhi ... vs Jayesh Sangharajka - Resolution ...
- CitationInterlocutory Application No.2222/2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal condoned an eight-day delay in re-filing a memo of appeal, on the ground that the reasons given in the application (difference in interpretation over bookmarking and a typographical error requiring a notary's signature, necessitating travel) were sufficient cause for the delay.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
UTI Employees Sai Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society through its Secretary .... Appellant
Vs.
Jayesh Sanghrajka, Resolution Professional of Ornate Spaces Pvt. Ltd. (CD) & Anr. .... Respondents
Appearance: Radhika Goel and Pramod Kumar, Advocates for the Appellant.
23rd May, 2023
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 24.04.2023 and the Office after scrutiny of the Memo of Appeal on 27.04.2023, intimated the defects to the Appellant on the same day and returned the Memo of Appeal to the Appellant on 28.04.2023. The Appellant re-filed the Memo of Appeal on 12.05.2023. It is stated in the Interlocutory Application (IA) that Defect No.1 could not be removed as there was difference in interpretation on how Bookmarking is to be done, and also there was a typographical error, which correction required the signature of the notrary, which required travelling back to Mumbai. Hence, there is delay of 08 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