AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
The Appellant had preferred the instant Company Appeal bearing an e-filing No. 9805111/01201/2024. Initially the same was marked as defective by the Registry of this Appellate Tribunal, showing certain defects, which had chanced in preferring the Appeal. Since the same was not rectified within the time provided by the Registry of this Tribunal, the matter was taken up on e-filing number dated 11.06.2024, whereby the Appellant was granted 7 days’ time to remove the defects. As the defects were not rectified, the Appeal with the aforesaid e-filing was placed before this Appellate Tribunal on 06.08.2024 and because of the non-rectification of the defects as pointed out by the Registry, this Appellate Tribunal granted further 7 days’ time to rectify the defects failing which the Appeal was directed to be dismissed without reference to the Bench.
When the same was not complied with, this Appellate Tribunal was constrained to pass the further order, after assigning the transitory number to the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 901201/2024, and based upon the non-compliance of the earlier directions, the Appeal was dismissed under Rule 26(3)(4) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, on 09.09.2024.
The Appellant has filed a Restoration Application, in the Transitory Company Appeal No. 901201/2024, which has been numbered as an Interlocutory Application i.e., IA No. 162/2025, wherein the Appellant has sought for the recall of the earlier orders, by which the Appeal was dismissed under Rule 26(3)(4) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, due to non-rectification of the defects as pointed out by the Registry, within time prescribed by our orders, passed earlier on 06.08.2024 and the consequential order passed on 09.09.2024.
According to the defects as pointed out by the Registry of this Appellant Tribunal, it had been pointed out that the Appeal has been preferred based upon the Power of Attorney, said to have been executed in favour of the Appellant for the purposes of preference of the Company Appeal and secondly, that no exemption application has been filed. Besides that, the Registry has raised further objection to the effect that the stage of the proceedings in pursuance to the impugned order dated 27.07.2024, has not been mentioned and that it is not clear as to how the Appellant could be permitted to the avail the remedy as mentioned in Point 21(b), which is challenged along with the main Appeal.
In the Recall Application thus preferred and also during the course of the argument, it has been brought to the notice by the Appellant that, he has filed the power of attorney as executed along with the records of the Appeal, as well as, that he has also filed an application for dispensation from filing the certified copy of the Impugned Order under challenge. So far as the other defects as pointed out by the Registry regarding the stage of the proceedings in pursuance to the order of 27.07.2024 and regarding how the remedy mentioned in Point 21(b), would be tenable in the main prayer, are concerned, there will not be an issue which could be pointed or be considered by Court Officer of the Registry, being a subject matter, which will call for judicial scrutiny by this Appellate Tribunal.
Owing to the fact that, the attorney has already been placed on record and there happens to be an exemption application already filed, there happens to be no defect as such as of now except, for the adjudication of the two issues already pointed out, which has to be considered on the judicial side. In this eventuality, the Appellant is directed to refile the Appeal and the embargo of the order dated 09.09.2024, dismissing the Appeal bearing transitory number CA (AT) (CH) No. 901201/2024, under Rule 26(3)(4) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, would stand recalled with a liberty left open to the Appellant to refile the Appeal on its Transitory Number.