9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (1) TMI 354 - HC - Central ExciseCondonation of delay - Restoration application - Limitation - The applicant was represented by another advocate and was not informed as regards dismissal of the application for non-removal of office objections - The status of the application, was shown to be pending on the High Court website and as such, the applicant was entertaining a bona fide belief that the application was pending and was not aware of the dismissal of the application - Sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay that has occasioned in filing the restoration application - Hence, the application is allowed.
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing restoration application.
Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Gujarat involved the condonation of delay in filing a restoration application. The application sought condonation of delay in filing Misc. Civil Application [Stamp] No. 2390 of 2009 for the restoration of CECG Application [Stamp] No. 124 of 2004. The applicant, represented by a Standing Counsel, argued that they were prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the prescribed period of limitation, thus requiring the delay to be condoned. Despite the service of Rule, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent during the proceedings. The court considered the averments made in the application and noted that the applicant was initially represented by another advocate who failed to inform them about the dismissal of the application for non-removal of office objections. Additionally, the status of the application on the High Court website indicated it was pending, leading the applicant to believe in good faith that the application was still pending and unaware of its dismissal. Consequently, the court found that sufficient cause had been established for condoning the delay in filing the restoration application. Based on the facts presented, the court allowed the application, thereby condoning the delay caused in filing Misc. Civil Application [Stamp] No. 2390 of 2009. The rule was made absolute accordingly, and the Registry was directed to assign a regular number to the application and list it for further proceedings on 2nd February 2011.
|
