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
20 paragraphs · 394 wordsTarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer
We have heard Shri Lalit Kumar Maharana, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Ms. Nidhi Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent. The
appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 10th February, 2020. It transpires that a restoration application was sent by post on 16th March,
2020. The Appellant has prayed for restoration of the appeal contending that the Authorized Representative of the Company had to go to Delhi to
attend another meeting on account of which he could not appear on the date fixed. In this regard, it was also contended that the Authorized
Representative had sent an email dated 10th February, 2020 to the Registrar of the Tribunal requesting for an adjournment.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent has opposed the restoration application contending that due diligence was not observed
by the Appellant and, in any case, the application for restoration had been filed beyond 30 days which cannot be entertained unless and until an
application for condonation of delay is filed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that admittedly an email was sent by the Authorized Representative of the Appellant to
the Registrar of this Tribunal seeking an adjournment. The said email was not placed before the Tribunal and accordingly the appeal was dismissed for
want of prosecution.
In our opinion, cause shown is sufficient and for the said reasons the order dated 10th February, 2020 dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution
is recalled. Misc. Application no.142 of 2020 is allowed.
Let the appeal be listed for admission through video conferencing or through physical appearance depending on the prevailing situation at 11.30 a.m.
on 17th June, 2020. Parties will take necessary instructions from the Registrar of this Tribunal 48 hours before the date fixed.
The present matter was heard through video conference due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible to sign a copy of this order nor a
certified copy of this order could be issued by the registry. In these circumstances, this order will be digitally signed by the Presiding Officer on behalf
of the bench and all concerned parties are directed to act on the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties will act on production of a digitally signed
copy sent by fax and/or email.