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
5 paragraphs · 229 wordsCA No.44/2020 IN CP No.117/ND/2015
None for the Petitioner/ Applicant. Ld. Counsel for the ROC present.
It is noted that even on the last date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.
This application has been filed for restoration of CP No.117/ND/2015, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.12.2019. The Company Petition No.117/ND/2015 is very old petition, which was earlier dismissed in default of parties vide order dated 15.03.2018 but was subsequently restored vide order dated 20.04.2018 on filing of restoration application i.e. CA No.93/2018 by the petitioner. However, the CP No.117/ND/2015 was again dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 19.12.2019 of this Tribunal. Thereafter, the present restoration application has been filed on 22.01.2020 with prayer for condonation of delay as this application was filed beyond permissible time limit. From the records, it has been found that counsel for petitioner remained absent on most of the dates of hearing and he was not present on last two dates of hearing also i.e. 10.10.2022 and 20.12.2022 and today also he was not present.
Therefore, this Tribunal finds that the continuous absence of the Petitioner/ Applicant shows that the Petitioner/ Applicant is not interested to pursue the present application and no useful purpose would be served keeping the present application i.e. CA No.44/2020 pending and hence, the present application for restoration of CP No.117/ND/2015 is also dismissed for non-prosecution.