Allowed¶22

Parle Products Private Limited v. Sardar Fancy Stores

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jul 2025MCC/430/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; MCC No. 430 of 2025; restoration application; restoration of M.A. No. 82 of 2019 dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 18.02.2025; absence of petitioner's counsel held bona fide; Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner) v. Sardar Fancy Stores (respondent); counsel: Ashish Pandey for petitioners, Nitesh Jain for respondent; Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi; decided 18/07/2025; M.A. restored to original number.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of M.A. No. 82 of 2019 to its original number. ¶22

Parle Products Private Limited Vs Sardar Fancy Stores — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

2025:CGHC:34329

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCC No. 430 of 2025

¶6

1 - Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Authorized Representative Shri Vrushal S. Uttarde, Aged About 37 Years, S/o Shambhu Uttarde, Parle Products Pvt. Ltd., North Level Crossing, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai (Maharashtra) 400057.

¶7

2 - Area Sales Manager Parle Products Private Limited, Behind Jayka Automobiles, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

...Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Sardar Fancy Stores Through Its Prop. Baljit Singh Chhabda, Manav Mandir Chowk, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Petitioners	: Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent	: Mr. Nitesh Jain, Advocate.

¶14

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

18/07/2025

¶17

Counsel for the petitioners is heard on restoration application.

¶18

The petitioner is seeking restoration of M.A. No. 82 of 2019 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 18.02.2025.

¶19

On due consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the

¶20

¶21

petitioners and the grounds taken in the restoration petition, I am satisfied that the absence of the petitioner’s counsel on 18.02.2025 when M.A. No. 82 of 2019 was taken-up for hearing was based on bona fide grounds.

¶22