9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstitute communication of the objection or proposal in writing - Letter can be said to have been communicated to the petitioner only on the date on which the petitioner noticed it on the website - Petitioner's application for registration cannot therefore, be deemed to have been abandoned - Decided in favour of Petitioner. - WRIT PETITION NO. 2088 OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2013 - S.J. VAZIFDAR and MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee with Mr.N.B. Boral and Mr.Rakesh Pandey i/b Ashwin Ankhad Associates for the Petitioner Mr. D.A. Athavale with Mr.A.R. Varma for the Union of India -Respondents JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the writ petition is heard finally. 2. The petitioner is a b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st for a hearing was not applied for, the application would be treated as having been abandoned for lack of prosecution under section 132 of the said Act. 6. Admittedly, the letter / examination report dated 19.09.2011 was not forwarded to the petitioner or its advocates. It was merely placed on the respondents' website. 7. The petitioner's advocate by a letter dated 28.03.2012 stated the above facts. It was inadvertently stated that he had logged into the respondents' website on 28.03.2012, whereas he had in fact done so on 13.03.2012. The same however is of no consequence. The petitioner's advocate requested the respondents to treat the date of downloading from the website as the date of the petitioner's knowledge of the order contai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules. The respondents have not indicated anything that obliged the petitioner to inspect the website on a daily basis. Nor did they indicate any rule or practice by which the petitioner was bound legally to take notice of anything that is posted on the respondents' website. Rule 38(4) by itself does not require an applicant for registration to inspect the respondents' website. The petitioner therefore cannot be imputed with the knowledge of the said letter dated 19.09.2011. The mere posting of the letter on the website does not constitute communication of the objection or proposal in writing as required by rule 38(4). 10. The letter dated 19.09.2011, at the highest, can be said to have been communicated to the petitioner only on the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
