Hearing regarding the restoration of a Tribunal Application (T.S.A.) dismissed due to non-appearance. The High Court allowed the interim order to continue.
Allowed the urgent application no.49 of 2025 and restored the Tribunal case no.54 of 2023.
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.
| 23.04.2025 | Exh. | Roznama-MDRT-II M.A. No.49 of 2025 |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mr Puneet Gogad (through VC) and Mr Kushal Sawant, Advocate for the Applicant. None for Respondent. |
|||
| 6 | Service affidavit (exhibit-6) filed by counsel for the Applicant. Heard on M.A. No.49 of 2025. Counsel for the Applicant submits that on 25.03.2025, no representation was made by the Applicant hence, T.S.A. No.54 of 2023 was dismissed. On that date, the Ld. Counsel was arguing the matter before the DRT-1, Mumbai at Sr. Nos.4 & 5, so, he could not appear when the matter was called out. Counsel for the Applicant drew the Tribunal’s attention towards exhibits-2, 3 & 4 which is making it clear that the Counsel for the Applicant, Mr Puneet Gogad a/w Mr Amar Dube was present before DRT-1, Mumbai. In the present case, there was sufficient ground for the non- appearance before the Tribunal in |
Page 1 of 2
| T.S.A. No.54 of 2023, hence, M.A. No.49 of 2025 is allowed and T.S.A. No.54 of 2023 stands restored. |
||
|---|---|---|
| nrb - 06 | Interim order granted in T.S.A. No.54 of 2023 to continue. Sd/- P.O. DRT-II |
Closed |
Page 2 of 2
Mr Puneet Gogad
Respondent
P.O.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
