9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non appearance of its counsel - Held that:- From perusal of the averments contained in the application for recalling the order dated 26-6-2013, it appears that the representative of the appellant company failed to attend the proceedings before the Tribunal due to his ailment and the surgery availed by him. The Tribunal while rejecting the application aforesaid did not choose to examine correctnes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appeal was heard and dismissed in absence of the representative of the appellant company. An application to recall the order aforesaid was preferred by the appellant and that came to be dismissed on 2-12-2013 by observing as under :- This appeal is 8 years old. Stay order was passed on 4-1-2006. There was a partial deposit of ₹ 85,000/- called for by the stay order. When the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication preferred by the appellant for recalling the order dated 26-6-2013 without examining sufficiency of the cause extended for non appearance of its counsel? 4. Admit. Issue notice. 5. Mr. Jagat Tatia accepts notice. 6. Looking to the narrow amplitude of the controversy involved, we consider it appropriate to hear and dispose of the appeal at this stage, for which learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Accordingly, the same is allowed. It is held that the rejection of the application for recalling the order dated 26-6-2013 is bad as the Tribunal did not examined sufficiency of the cause extended for not attending the Court proceedings by representative of the appellant company. The order dated 26-6-2003, thus, is set aside. The Tribunal shall hear the application afresh by providing opportunit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
