The tribunal condoned a delay of 195 days in filing an application for restoration of an appeal dismissed in ex parte. The delay was attributed to a clerical error in noting the hearing date.
Condonation of delay of 195 days in filing the application for restoration of appeal.
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.
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
IA 539/2019
in R.A:60/2017
Central Bank Of India V/S Pals Aqua Products & Ors
19/07/2022
No representation for R3.
This application is filed for condonation of delay of 195 days in filing the application for restoration of appeal, which was dismissed on 16.10.2018. R1 & R2 remained ex parte and R3 in spite of granting time did not choose to file any counter.
Advocate for appellant submitted that as date of hearing was wrongly noted as 16.1.2019 instead of 16.10.2018, none could appear on 16.10.2018 and appellant was under the impression that appeal is reposted in normal course on the eve of Pongal Festival and thus delay had occurred in filing application for restoration.
None appeared for R3.
As affidavit averments explaining delay remained unchallenged, same are accepted and delay in filing petition for restoration is condoned.
Sd/Chairperson
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 195 days in filing the application for restoration of appeal is condonable.
Whether the mistake in noting the hearing date warrants condonation of delay.
Central Bank Of India
Pals Aqua Products
Ors
As recorded by the court registry
20 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
