9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... So far as the prayer for fresh affidavit by the petitioners is concerned, the submission is court should not allow a cause of action which was arose 32 years back - The petitioners have tried to plead that the trustees, who had filed the writ petition, subsequently ceased to be trustees by virtue of death, resignation or otherwise - It appears from the application that in January, 2008 the petitioners came to know that the erstwhile advocate on record had expired on August 20, 2007 - Therefore, since delay of about 32 years has not been explained at all for moving the application belatedly and no sufficient cause has been made out for the restoration of the petition being C. R. No. 3100 (W) of 1974, the application for registration is dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the rule. 3. After the application for reconstruction being C. A. N. No. 2144 of 2009 was moved on May 6, 2009 the petitioners were directed to serve copies of the application on the respondents as well as on the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Union of India. Thereafter, the matter came up on February 16, 2009 when the Registry was directed to trace the file and to submit a report on the next date of hearing. It appears from the report dated January 28, 2010, which is a part of the records, that as on that date the file could not be traced. Thereafter, the Registry after much difficulty traced out the register of the year 1974 relating to the said file when it appeared that rule had been discharged on December 19, 1977 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no scrap of paper in support of the restoration application and there is no averment in the restoration application why it could not be filed on time, no sufficient cause has been made out for restoration. So far as the prayer for fresh affidavit by the petitioners is concerned, the submission is court should not allow a cause of action which was arose 32 years back.] 6. Heard learned senior advocates for the parties. So far as the application for restoration being C. A. N. No. 2958 of 2010 is concerned, I find that the petitioners have tried to explain the delay in moving the application in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 thereof. The petitioners have tried to plead that the trustees, who had filed the writ petition, subsequently c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh it has been stated that the erstwhile advocate on record did not take steps despite repeated requests, no document in support of the same has been annexed to the application. The argument that pursuant to the letter dated November 13, 2006 issued by the Assistant Director of Income-tax (E-1) Kolkata the petitioners by letters dated November 20, 2006 and February 19, 2007 had taken up the matter with the Revenue regarding assessment and thus, the court should consider the matter leniently, cannot be accepted as there is no explanation regarding the fact that what had prevented the petitioners from informing the erstwhile advocate on record in December 2006 or in the early 2007 for mentioning the matter being C. R. No. 3100 (W) of 1974 wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
