9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Stay petition dismissal for non-prosecution, restoration of stay petition for hearing.
Analysis: 1. Stay Petition Dismissal: The Appellate Tribunal, in the case at hand, dismissed the stay petition filed by the applicants for non-prosecution through Order No. S/294/08/SMB/C-II dated 8-8-2008. The applicants' advocate had professional commitments in the High Court, leading to non-appearance before the Tribunal. The advocate's junior attended the Tribunal but found the Bench had risen. Subsequently, upon realizing the stay application was listed before another member, the junior rushed to that court, but the designated member had also concluded proceedings for the day. This sequence of events led to the non-appearance of the applicants before the Tribunal, resulting in the dismissal of the stay petition. 2. Restoration of Stay Petition: The applicants, through a miscellaneous application, provided a detailed account of the circumstances that led to their non-appearance. The Tribunal, after considering the reasons furnished by the applicants for their absence on 8-8-2008, accepted the explanation and decided to restore the stay petition to its original number. The Tribunal, acknowledging the genuine reasons for non-prosecution, scheduled the hearing of the restored stay petition for 12-12-2008. This decision reflects the Tribunal's adherence to principles of natural justice and fairness by allowing the applicants an opportunity to present their case effectively after addressing the procedural lapse that led to the initial dismissal of the petition. In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, highlights the importance of procedural diligence in legal proceedings while also demonstrating the Tribunal's willingness to consider genuine reasons for non-appearance and provide a fair opportunity for parties to present their case.
|
