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
11 paragraphs · 208 wordsHeard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the reasons pleaded in M.A Nos. 507 to 510 of 2021 seeking restoration of these petitions
bearing number BP Nos. 173, 174, 175 and 178 of 2021 respectively.
In ordinary course, if the petitioner had great difficulty in complying with the peremptory order of 13.8.2021 it should have filed an appropriate
application for extension of time but that was not done. However, it has been pleaded that the incharge of these matters in the petitioner company
had resigned and the next appointment took some time.
Considering the aforesaid difficuties of the petitioner, in the interest of justice, the prayer for restoration is allowed. It has been shown that the
newspaper publication by way of notice to the concerned respondents has already been made on 10.9.2021. That shall be treated as suffcient
compliance of the earlier direction for publication of notice in the newspaper. Let affidavit of service on the basis of newspaper publication shown to
have been made may be filed within one week.
The MAs are allowed and disposed of accordingly. As a result BP Nos. 173, 174, 175 and 178 of 2021 shall stand restored to their original file.
Post the matter under the same head on 23.2.2022.