Office of the Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex Mumbai vs Ingram Micro India Private Limited — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Office of the Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex Mumbai vs Ingram Micro India Private Limited — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 52 days in filing the Chamber Order condoned and Chamber Order granted as prayed, restoring the captioned Appeal, subject to removal of office objections and registration/numbering of the Appeal within four weeks from upload of the order, failing which the Appeal will stand rejected under O.S. Rule 986.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 52 days in filing the present Chamber Order (sought to set aside the order dated 30.06.2023 rejecting the captioned Appeal under O.S. Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections) should be condoned and the Appeal restored.

Court's answer

Since the respondents were duly served but none appeared for them, the contentions raised in the Affidavit / Additional Affidavit in Support remained uncontested and could be relied upon.

Ratio / Principle

Reliance was placed on the uncontested contentions for restoration of the captioned Appeal so that the applicant would get one opportunity to pursue it, and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents since they can contest the Appeal on its merits.

Key takeaways

The delay of 52 days caused in filing the present Chamber Order is condoned and the present Chamber Order is granted as prayed.ratio¶5
The appellant is to remove office objections on the Appeal and get it registered and/or numbered within four weeks from the date of uploading of the order, failing which the Appeal will stand rejected for non-compliance of office objections under O.S. Rule 986.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay - 52 days' delay in filing Chamber Order (CHOL/31/2024) seeking setting aside of order dated 30.06.2023 rejecting captioned Appeal (CUAPPL/22135/2022) under O.S. Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections - respondents duly served per Affidavit of Service but none appeared; contentions in Affidavit / Additional Affidavit in Support remained uncontested - delay attributed to clerk of erstwhile Advocate leaving job without intimating about dismissal of the Appeal, stated to be unintentional - delay condoned and Chamber Order granted as prayed; applicant to get one opportunity to pursue the Appeal; no prejudice to respondents who can contest the Appeal on merits - appellant directed to remove office objections and get the Appeal registered/numbered within four weeks from upload of order, failing which the Appeal to stand rejected for non-compliance of office objections under O.S. Rule 986.

Before : Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 16^th June, 2025

FOR HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL :

32 CHOL/31/2024 ) Mr. Umesh Gupta i/b. Sangeeta Yadav, in ) Advocate for the applicant. CUAPPL/22135/2022 ) ) None present for the respondents. ) ) P.C.: The present Chamber Order is e-filed by the ) applicant for setting aside Order dated ) 30.06.2023, rejecting captioned Appeal under ) O.S.Rule 986 for non-compliance of office ) objections. ) ) Ld. Advocate for the applicant submits that the ) respondents were served with the Chamber ) Order as per Affidavit of Service, which was ) filed on record. However, despite service, ) none appeared for and on behalf of the ) respondents. ) ) Heard Ld. Advocate for the applicant. Perused ) Affidavit in Support and Additional Affidavit in ) Support to the Chamber Order. It is contended ) that time and again office had raised office ) objections, which were complied with in time. ) However, Appeal could not be registered as ) compliance was not as required by the ) Registry, and therefore, it got rejected. It is ) contended in Additional Affidavit that clerk of ) erstwhile Advocate left the job without ) intimating about dismissal of the Appeal due ) to which delay of 52 days caused in filing ) present Chamber Order, which was not ) intentional. Ld. Advocate for the applicant ) submits that now, he will pursue with the ) captioned Appeal diligently if it is restored to ) file and prayed for restoration of the Appeal by ) condoning delay. ) ) Since none appeared for the respondents, ) contentions raised in Affidavit / Additional ) Affidavit in Support remain uncontested.

2 Before : Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 16^th June, 2025

Therefore, I do not hesitate to rely on the same for the purpose of restoration of captioned Appeal with a view that the applicant would get one opportunity to pursue with the captioned Appeal. Furthermore, no prejudice would cause to the respondents since they can contest the Appeal on its merits. In view thereof, delay of 52 days caused in filing present Chamber Order is condoned and present Chamber Order is granted as prayed.

contd…. ) Therefore, I do not hesitate to rely on the CHOL/31/2024 ) same for the purpose of restoration of in ) captioned Appeal with a view that the CUAPPL/22135/2022 ) applicant would get one opportunity to pursue ) with the captioned Appeal. Furthermore, no ) prejudice would cause to the respondents ) since they can contest the Appeal on its merits. ) In view thereof, delay of 52 days caused in ) filing present Chamber Order is condoned and ) present Chamber Order is granted as prayed. ) ) The appellant to remove office objections on ) the Appeal and get the same registered and/or ) numbered within four weeks from the date of ) uploading of order, failing Appeal to stand ) rejected for non-compliance of office ) objections under O.S.Rule 986.

Date : 16.06.2025

Prothonotary and Senior Master

Digitally signed by RAJEEV RAJEEVVIJAYACHARYA VIJAYACHARYADate:2025.06.17 12:21:10 +0530