9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ismissal of the Application for this cause. The same has also been compounded further by the uploading of an order on 02.11.2018 which has been as rightly pointed out by Learned Counsel for the Applicant had misled the Applicant as if the Application is still pending on the file of this Tribunal and even though the same has been disposed of as dismissed for default on 08.10.2018 itself and thus we find a merit in the submissions made by the Applicant. The delay of 379 days in filing the Application seeking for restoration of the Petition stands condoned. - IA/495/IB/2020 in CP/661(IB)/CB/2018 - - - Dated:- 31-3-2021 - R. Varadharajan, Member (J) And Anil Kumar B., Member (T) For the Appellant : A. Abdul Hameed, Advocate ORD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt hearing date was not mentioned. 6. In the meanwhile, representative of the Applicant left without informing the next hearing date and in the records of this Tribunal it was seen that on 02.11.2018, it is claimed that the Corporate Debtor was proceeded ex parte by this Tribunal and the matter was posted to 09.11.2018 to make final submissions of the Operational Creditor/Applicant. 7. However, subsequently on 09.11.2018 and thereafter the matter was not listed before this Tribunal. Since the matter has not been listed for a long time, the Applicant felt suspicious and caused a check made with the Registry and it came to be known that on 08.10.2018 itself the Petition had been dismissed for default for non appearance of the Applicant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the matter of S. Rasool Mohideen Vs M/s. Bashyam Reddy Co. rendered in CRP (NPD) No. 105/2020 and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as rendered in the matter of Perumon Bhagavathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village -vs - Bhargavi Amma (dead) By LRs. and Others in (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 321. 12. Learned Counsel for the Applicant drew the attention of this Tribunal that both the above decisions cited above have held that sufficient cause for not making the Application during the period of limitation which shall be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the type of case and that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
