9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst respondent Tribunal had dismissed the same, without proper application of mind. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also submitted that the petitioner has a reasonable chance of succeeding in the appeal, in T.A.No.1198 of 2002, in view of the order, dated 24.11.2011, made in Civil Appeal No.3773 of 2000. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions. "1) Indian Statistical Institute Vs. Associated Builders, (1978) 1 SCC 483; 2) Improvement Trust Vs. Ujagar Singh, (2010) 6 SCC 786 and 3) The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. M.S.A.Ibrahim, 2011(3) CTC 337" 3. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Even though the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity to pursue the petition, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, either by the petitioner, or by its authorized representative. Therefore, the said petition had been dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed another petition, in T.M.P.No.85 of 2011, to condone the delay of 429 days in filing the restoration petition, to restore the petition, in T.M.P.No.171 of 2008. By an order, dated 11.10.2011, the Tribunal had dismissed the said petition, as not maintainable. Paragraph 6 of the said order reads as follows: 6.TA was filed in 2002. It was numbered as TA 1198/2002. As the petitioner did not appear for several hearings TA was dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found not convincing. Further dealer in their affidavit in TMP 171/2008 did not come with proper reason for filing this petition for restoration for more than three years. In view of the above, this TMP 86/2011 is dismissed as not maintainable. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order of the first respondent Tribunal, dated 11.10.2011, and to direct the first respondent to restore the appeal, in T.A.No.1198 of 2002, on its file and to dispose of the same, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court, dated 24.11.2011, made in Civil Appeal No.3773 of 2000. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the seco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, on mere hyper-technical grounds, if sufficient cause is shown for the condonation of the delay in filing such an application. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the second respondent, and on a perusal of the records available and in view of the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. It is noted from the available records, that the petitioner has been filing several petitions, one after the other, for the condonation of the delay and for the restoration of the petitions filed by the petitioner, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
