M S Jai Carpets v. Allahabad Bank
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
M.A. No. 236/2019 In M.A. No. 206/2019 In M.A. No. 174/2019 In M.A. No. 64/2021 in Regular Appeal No. 100/2015
Date: 17.11.2022
M/s Jai Carpets Vs. Allahabad Bank and Ors. Present : Shri D. P. Shukla, counsel for the applicant,
The record shows that the learned counsel for the applicant could not appear in the present matter on 25.11.2020, 13.04.2021, 24.11.2021, 06.04.2022 and 04.07.2022, whereas the restoration application has been filed and last restoration application being M.A. No. 236/2019 is pending for recalling the order dated 07.11.2019, for which no good ground is made out for restoring the appeal by the learned counsel for the applicant for repeatedly non-appearance on the aforesaid dates and repeatedly by filing the restoration applications. It appears that the applicant does not want to pursue the matter and gets the appeal dismissed in default and then file the restoration application only to keep the matter pending before this Tribunal, therefore, the said application is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the restoration application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
After passing of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the applicant prays that the Tribunal below may be directed to decide the pending O.A. No. 88/2003 within the time as stipulated by this Tribunal. It is expected that the Tribunal below will decide the O.A. No. 88/2003 most expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within 3 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Parties & counsel
- applicant
M/s Jai Carpets
- respondent
Allahabad Bank and Ors.
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
3 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court