Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Another

Through the instant petition, c ast under Articles 226/227 of t he Constitutio n of India, a challenge is thro w n to the order dated 16.11.2 0 23 (Annexure P -6), whereby, the restoration a pplication filed by the petitio n er, has been dismissed, and order date d 30.07.2014 (Annexure P - 3), wherethrou g h, the statutory appeal preferr e d by the petitioner was dismis s ed for want of p rosecution.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petiti o ner in order to throw challeng e to the orders ( s upra), submits that the petition e r’s appeal was pending before t he learned Appellate forum concerned, for dated 30.07.2014, for orders on verification of records. On the said date, learned counsel for the petitio n er caused app e arance before the authorities c o ncerned, and he was informed t h at MANPREET SINGH 2025.04.07 17:45I attest to the accuracy andnext date w ill be informed in the matter. However, in the interregnum, t he authenticity of this order/judgment

¶13

CWP-6655-2024 2

¶14

appeal was dismissed for want of prose c ution, and apparently, there i s a factual err o r in recording the said order, passed by the statutory autho r ity concerned. He further submits that an app l ication, seeking restoration of t he appeal was filed on dated 16.09.2014, wh i ch was kept pending for about 09 years, and u nfortunately, it was dismisse d only, on account of delay of 17 days, in fi l ing. He further submits that a fter dismissal of the appeal, t he respondent s have now issued the pro h ibitory order dated 16.02.2 0 24 (Annexure P -8), for sealing of bank accou n t of the petitioner. Finally, lear n ed counsel fo r the petitioner submits that the learned Appellate Autho r ity concerned, instead of adjudicating the ap p eal on merits, has dismissed t he application for restoration, vide order dat e d 16.11.2023 (Annexure P-6), on hyper techn i cal ground, i.e. delay of only 1 7 days in filing the said applicati o n. In addition, he submits that the petitioner t o show his bona fide , has alre a dy deposited t h e entire disputed amount, and t ook a stand that the petitioner s till has a right f or adjudication of the appeal.

¶15

At the time of issuing notice o f motion, the co-ordinate Benc h of this Court, b y drawing an order dated 20.0 3 .2024, had stayed the operatio n of the impu g ned prohibitory order date d 16.02.2024 (Annexure P - 8). Furthermor e , the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by drawing an order da t ed 28.08.2024, passed in CM-13502-CWP-20 2 4, had also stayed the operatio n of the show cause notice dated 15.07.2024. 4. Today, learned counsel fo r respondent No.2, has cau s ed appearance in the Court, and has opposed the prayer made by the petitio n er through the instant petition. However, he a grees to the effect that the appeal ought to ha v e been decided on merits.

¶16

MANPREET SINGH 2025.04.07 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶17

CWP-6655-2024 3

¶18

This Court has considered t h e submissions, as made by t he learned co u nsel for the parties concerned, a nd is of the considered view t h at the instant petition is amenable to be all o wed for the hereinafter extrac t ed reasons :-

¶19

(i) this Court can infer f rom the pleadings that absenc e of the petitioner on the da t e when the appeal was dismis s ed for non-prosecution, w a s neither intentional, nor effected with malice, rather it w as on account of the reasons, as explained in the instant w rit petition;

¶20

(ii) though there is a delay of 17 days in filing the application for restor a tion, strangely, that applicat i on remained pending for a bout 09 years. The adjudicat o ry authority ought to hav e decided the appeal, instead of dismissing the applicat i on for restoration, within suc h a long duration;

¶21

(iii) the petitioner, in o rder to show his bona fide, h as already deposited the e ntire disputed amount, theref o re, his statutory right for a djudication, by the first Appell a te Authority, cannot be s n atched only on account of hy p er technical ground.

¶22

In view of the above, the i n stant petition is allowed and t he impugned o rder dated 16.11.2023 (Annexu r e P-6) and order dated 30.07.2 0 14 (Annexure P -3), is hereby, set aside. The appeal preferred by the petitio n er before the l e arned Appellate Authority con c erned, is ordered to be restore d to its original n umber.

¶23

Since the lis is pending since 2 014, therefore, further manda m us is passed u pon the learned Appellate A u thority concerned, to decide t he appeal, wit h in a period of four months, fr o m the date of receipt of certi fi ed copy of this order/judgment.

¶24

MANPREET SINGH 2025.04.07 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶25

CWP-6655-2024 4

¶26

In the meanwhile, the operation of the prohibitory order da t ed 16.02.2024 (Annexure P-8), as well as sh o w cause notice dated 15.07.20 2 4, for damage s , which was stayed by the co-o r dinate Bench of this Court, wo u ld remain in e ffect, till the final decision of t he appeal is taken by the lear n ed Appellate C ourt concerned.

¶27

Ordered accordingly.

¶28

(KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE

¶29

April 02, 2 0 25 Manpreet

¶30

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶31

MANPREET SINGH 2025.04.07 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankuj Rana and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Satnam Singh Khattra through Spa Holder Parmeet Singh Vs Union of India through Its Secretary and Others

Hindustan Agro Inputs through Its Prop Vs State of Haryana and Others

Axis Bank Limited Vs Joginder Pal and Another

Parveen Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ms Ratnashil Online Service Private Limited and Anr. Vs the State of Ut Chandigarh and Ors.