AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Peeush Pandey, Registrar
This is an application to extend the time granted for curing the defects.
The facts of the case are that the Appellants filed the Memo of Appeal on 20.12.2022 and the Office after scrutiny of the Memo of Appeal on 22.12.2022, intimated the defects and returned the Memo of Appeal to the Appellants on the same day. The Appellants re-filed the Memo of Appeal on 09.01.2023. It is stated in the Interlocutory Application (IA) that due to Christmas holidays the defects could not be cured within 7 days prescribed period and then submission of bord resolution was required and as the same was to come from Bhilwara in Rajasthan, which also took some time. Hence, there is delay of 11 days in re-filing the Memo of Appeal, so the same may be condoned.
Apart from that, the Registry has pointed out that defect Nos.5, 6, 7 and 13 have also not been cured by the Appellant. Defect No.5 is “In whole appeal, Appellant no.2 signature is not filed”. Defect No.6 is “Verification supporting memorandum of appeal on behalf of Appellant No.2 is not filed”. Defect No.7 is “Affidavit supporting memorandum of appeal is not filed on behalf of Appellant no.2”. Defect No.13 is “Board resolution is not filed on behalf of Appeal no.2”.
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and perused the averments made in the IA as well as Office report.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the Appellants and for the reasons mentioned in the IA, which are sufficient, the delay in re-filing the Memo of Appeal is hereby condoned.
As regard defects Nos.5, 6, 7 and 13 are concerned, it is seen that an undertaking has been given on the defect sheet on behalf of the Appellant stating that “Defect No.5, 6, 7 and 13 – Board Resolution already filed if any further documents required by the Hon’ble Court will supply the same accordingly. The further documents will be supplied in All I.A.’s if need be so or directed by the Hon’ble Court. Mr. Ravi Anand is constituted attorney for Appellant No.2 and also representing Appellant no.1 if any further documents required by Hon’ble Court with respect to authority of Ravi Anand same shall be filed accordingly. Hence, no separate signature required on behalf of Appellant no.2. If the Hon’ble Court still requires same shall be filed accordingly.”
As prayed, list the case before the Hon’ble Bench under the heading ‘for admission (fresh case)’.
With the aforesaid order, this IA stands disposed of.