The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed an application to restore a 2004 appeal that was previously dismissed for the appellant's repeated absence. The chairperson rejected the counsel's explanation of unavailability after a decade-long delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson
M.A. No. 2/2022(Restoration)
In
(Misc. Appeal No. 270/2004 -Disposed of)
Between Continental Construction Ltd. … Appellant/s V/s. Export-Import Bank of India &Anr. …Respondent/s Order dated: 05/07/2022:-
This application is filed for restoring an Appeal of the year 2004. I perused the proceedings in this matter which indicates that time and again Appellant has been seeking adjournments on the ground that the counsel is not ready for a hearing. It is also recorded that the counsel comes from Delhi to argue the matter and for that reason, adjournments were sought. Time and again, the matter has been adjourned. The Appeal was thereafter posted for dismissal making it clear that the matter would be dismissed in case the Appellant is not ready for arguments. On that day also the Appellant and Counsel absented themselves, resulting in dismissal of the Appeal. The restoration application is filed seeking restoration of the matter stating that the counsel for that point of time engaged before Hon’ble High Court and the order of Hon’ble High Court is also produced to indicate that he was actually engaged to Hon’ble High Court. Being a matter of the year 2004, the Ld. Counsel should have earnestly given more attention to this case and assured that it is disposed of. The matter has been pending for the last 17 years
1
without any progress being made and therefore, I find that the explanation given for the absence that counsel is not acceptable, particularly when the matter was posted for dismissal. It is settled law that the inconvenience of the Counsel is no reason for granting the adjournments, in the instant case it is not once but umpteen times adjournments which were granted to the Appellant for the sake of facilitating his Counsel to be present for arguments. I am not inclined to interfere with the order of dismissal for the reason that sufficient time has already been granted. And being an old matter which has been pending in this Tribunal for more than one decade and a half. The application for restoration deserves no merits and is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/Chairperson
mks-15
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the restoration of a dismissal order, granted due to repeated absences and inadequate explanations, can be allowed.
Continental Construction Ltd.
Export-Import Bank of India
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
