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 · 234 wordsTarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer
The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on September 8, 2021. A recall application has been filed alongwith application for condonation
of delay. The delay in the filing of the restoration application is condoned for the reasons stated therein.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, cause shown is sufficient. The application for recall of our order dated September 8, 2021 is
allowed. The order dated September 8, 20221 is recalled. The appeal is restored to its original number.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that no sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay in the filing of the
appeal. The delay application, if any, in the filing of the appeal is rejected as a result of which the appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs.
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 Private Secretary 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.