TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in as much as this miscellaneous application was listed for disposal on 22.05.2003 and on request was adjourned to be heard on 27.06.2013. There were adjournments given in the case. After the last adjournment on 03.02.2014, the matter was listed on 28.08.2014 due to non-availability of the Bench during the interregnum period when the matter was listed. On 28.08.2014, an adjournment was sought which accommodated and the matter was listed for 15.09.2014; on the request of Ld.D.R. the matter got adjourned to today (i.e. 23.09.2014) for disposal. The entire history of the case indicates that the appellant was not serious and it seems that appellant was intentionally avoiding prosecution to prolong the proceedings as much as possible. We a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the opinion of the BIFR to that effect be recorded and forwarded to the jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court. It is his submission that consequent to such reference being made, Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in BIFR No.271/2002 had admitted such recommendations vide order dt.22.03.2007 and the assets of the appellants were taken over by the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd on 06.02.2008. It is his submission that in view of such a position, appellant was not in a situation to pre-deposit the amount as ordered by the Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court has now recalled this order for winding up of the company. It is his submission that the final order dt.14.03.2007 be recalled and the appeal be restored to its original number. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ismissed in March 2007. We find that the appellant had no intention to prosecute the matter before the adjudicating authority as well as appellate forum which is evidenced from the non-representation before the lower authorities as well as before the Tribunal. Be that as it may, we find that the callous attitude of the appellant continued even while prosecuting this miscellaneous application filed in as much as this miscellaneous application was listed for disposal on 22.05.2003 and on request was adjourned to be heard on 27.06.2013. On that day there being no Bench, the matter was adjourned to 20.11.2013, the matter was again adjourned there being no Bench to be heard on 28.01.2014, on which date again the adjournment request was made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. In our considered view, intent of the appellant seems to prolong the proceedings as much as possible, as the appellant was aware of dismissal of their appeal for non-compliance in March 2007 but to chose to keep silent without filing any application for restoration of appeal till April 2013. We find that no plausible explanation has been put forth in the application filed by the appellant for remaining absent from the proceedings all-through. In our considered view, as the appellant is moving various legal for as, must be having adequate knowledge of the law and the consequences of dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal. 8. In view of the foregoing, appellant has not made out any case for the restoration of appeal in view of the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
