Appeal against the dismissal of a restoration application. The Single Judge rejected the condonation of delay because no sufficient cause was made out for the two-year delay. Consequently, the restoration application was rejected.
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.
Misc. Application No. 21/2023 In Appeal Dy. No. 33/2020 Date: 13.05.2025
M/s Rishi Woolen Mills & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.
Present: Shri R. P. Singh, counsel for the appellant, Shri P. K. Gupta, counsel for the respondent-Bank,
Heard the learned counsels for the parties on the delay condonation application.
It appears that there is delay of two years in filing the present restoration application. In the restoration application, there is no good ground made out by the appellant for condoning the delay, thus the application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the same is rejected, consequently the restoration application also.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
VN Giri
M/s Rishi Woolen Mills & Ors.
State Bank of India & Ors.
Justice R. D. Khare
VN Giri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
