AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 214 wordsM A No. 362 of 2022
This application has been preferred by the respondent No. 1 for modification of our order dated 1.9.2022 whereby this Tribunal has imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- as the respondent No.1 was not filing the reply.
Having heard the counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that since long the respondent No. 1 was not filling reply in the B.P which is of the year 2020. Hence, the cost was imposed and only because of the imposition of the cost the machinery have been moved by the respondent No. 1 and now the reply has been filed by the respondent No. 1. Thus, it appears that there was deliberate delay on the part of the respondent No. 1 in filling of the reply. Hence, we see no reason to entertain this M.A. No.362 of 2022 and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
Counsel for the original petitioner is seeking time to file rejoinder affidavit in B.P and also seeking time to file reply in M.A 218 of 2022 which is filed by the respondent No. 2. Time, as prayed for, is granted. Hence, B.P No. 9 of 2020 as well as M.A No.218 of 2022 is adjourned to 12.4.2023.