Allowed

Hotel Ram Residency v. Bank of Baroda

DRT26 Jul 2023MA/36/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court restored Special Application No. 753/22 which had been dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-appearance, on the ground that the applicant and counsel had appeared on the same day. The matter was disposed off finally with restoration ordered.

What did the court decide?

Special Application No. 753/22 restored for hearing on merit; Registry directed to restore SA in original number.

DATE

DESCRIPTIONOFTHE ORDER

REiiARK

MA36/23
26t07t23

ShriAtulChoudhaly',Advlurthe Applicant
withApplicantno.2
ShriRahulGaneshe,Advlorthc^Non
Applicant Ilank

l.Matteristakenupfblhearingon^tht
applicationlbrrcstoratton.
2.Both thecor.tnsclsat'eagrcctoatgtte^th
matterfinally.
3.Matteristakcn upforfinal^hearing.
4.Onmatterbeingtakcn ApplrcautCloutlsc
byinvitingattentiononorderdaLed^2010712
submitsthatonnon-appearancelbr^firstrottn
tlrisnrattcr has bccndisrrissecilbr^rvanto
trrrosecution^{horrcr''cralicrsttrttetinle('or.rnse}
hadappearedandprayslirrrestolingth
matteronthesameday butprayerto
restorationhad bccn dcclincd thenonlythi
application Ibrt'cstot'ationhasbccrtIllctl.
5.ApplicantCounselturthcrapprisedtha
Applicantand CounseltbrtheApplicantsbot
wereintendccltoattendthclnattcr
runfbrtunatcly'thcy
loundolcall.
coulclnotlclchcdonllrs

6.Onbeing askcdResponclcntCounsc
submitsthat lookinstolirctrncntioncdunrlcr
theordcrshccIand plcadingrrlsohcob.jcctin
theprayerlbrrnally.

7.ThoughSANo.753/22
pcrusal hol'crclIooking
isnotcalledlir
tocorrtcntionso

DATE

DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER

REMARK

boththesidenoneedto^perusetheoriginal
recordsinceallthcfactshave alreadybeen
mentionedintheordersltcet drarvn^and
certified copyhas alreadybeentagged^ivith
thisMA.

8.Onperusalol'ordcrclatcd20i07i23^it
revealsthatulrcnlxattcruascallcdnoonc
hadappearcdonbehalfofthcApplicants
therefbreSANo.753l22 hadbeen^dismissed
fbrwantofprosecution,lookingttl^past
conductofApplicants.Houevct ontlte^sartte
dayApplicantCounsclShriAtulChoudhary,
hadappearedand praysfortakingthismatter
buttheBenchhasdeclinedtotaketlre^matter
sinceorderhasalrcadybeendictatcd.It^also
revealsthat thercalieranapplicationlirrtaking
this matterhasalsobecnfiledonthcsame^dal'
butduetonorr-availabilityol'^Respondent
Counsel applicationcouldnotlretrken^lilr
consideration.

9.Lookingtothc factthatonthe^sameday
Applicantandhisadvocatehad^appeared
belorethel'ribunaland^{prals lirrtakingthis}
matter,onthiscircuustanccs^{Applicantsare}
entitled tohearinthis^{matteron meritand SA}
No.753122 deservedto^berestored.
10.^{-thereforc pravcrlirrrestoration isallotlccl.}
SANo.753/22is^{hereby stand restored lbr}
hearingonmerit.
Il.Registryisdilcctcd^{torcstorcthcSA}
No.753122in original^nttmber'

DATE

DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER

REMARK

12.Registryis furlherdirectedtolist mainSA
No.753122on17108123fbrfinalhearingat
2:30 PM.

13.Itisalso madeclearthatifinterimrclief
hadalreadybccngrantedinthe mainSA
theninterim relicfshallalsobcrestorcd
andbecontinuedtillnext dateofhearing.
14.MAstand disposedoffinally'

15.Recordbeconsignedtotherccordroom.
slD
.**-*'
(Rari-NiwasI'}atcl)
Prcsidin
Ollicer
D.lL.T,.labalpur
(M.P&C.G)

Hotel Ram Residency v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hotel Ram Residency v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Jwellers versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Smt Lata Jain versus Icici Bank Limited

Shri Hemant Kumar Tanwar versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Smt Anju Yadav and Ors. versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Bank of India versus M/S Real Cement Products

Union Bank of India versus Indira Industries Limited