AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The respondents are stated to be served by publication. None appeared for the respondents. Accordingly, they are proceeded ex parte.
The appellant filed O.A. bearing no.1253/2001 titled as IDBI Bank Limited V. M/s J.R. Processors Limited & others before DRT, Chandigarh which was ordered to be dismissed in default vide order dated 06.11.2009. The order dated 06.11.2009 is reproduced as under:-
Present : None for the parties This twice passed over case. None appeared on behalf of either of the parties. Perused the record which reveals that applicant has lost interest for the prosecuting its case
Order
OA 1253/01 titled as IDBI Vs. J.R. Processors Ltd. is dismissed for non-prosecution of the parties.
The appellant filed M.A. bearing no.73/2018 on 08.12.2015 for setting aside/recalling the order dated 06.11.2009 which was ordered to be dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2022. DRT-II, Chandigarh in the impugned order dated 30.08.2022 observed that there was huge delay of about six years which cannot be condoned and did not believe the grounds for condonation of delay as put forward by the counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Aditya Goyal, Advocate for the appellant argued that the present O.A. was concerned with the recovery of public money and the delay was due to administrative management of the appellant and is entitled to be condoned. The counsel for the appellant further stated that the advocate on behalf of the appellant was regularly appearing missed to appear only on 06.11.2009. The counsel for the appellant also referred judgments where it has been held that where question of public money or public interest is involved then the delay should be condoned.
No proper explanation is given on behalf of the appellant for filing the M.A. bearing no.73/2018 for restoration of the O.A. bearing no.1253/2001 after a delay of about six years. If the advocate could not appear on 06.11.2009 when the case was called for hearing, there is no proper explanation as to why steps were not taken immediately for the restoration of the bearing no.1253/2001 for a period of six years. The perusal of the impugned order dated 30.08.2022 reflects that DRT-II, Chandigarh has taken a correct view while deciding the case and has rightly observed that no ground for condonation of delay was made out. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.