Restoration after dismissal for non-service fails where later notice to the Official Liquidator does not cure the original defect.

An appeal dismissed for want of service of hearing notice on the respondent could not be restored merely because notice was later served on the Official Liquidator. The tribunal found that, before dismissal, it had not been informed that the respondent-company was in liquidation, and Rule 22 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules was not satisfied by the subsequent service. Later service therefore did not cure the earlier defect or justify reopening the dismissed appeal. The restoration application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal dismissed for non-service of hearing notice on the respondent could be restored on the ground that notice had subsequently been served on the Official Liquidator.

Analysis: Restoration was sought after the appeal had earlier been dismissed for want of service. The record showed that the tribunal had not been informed before dismissal that the respondent-company was under liquidation. Under Rule 22 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules, and in view of the earlier dismissal for non-service of hearing notice, subsequent service on the Official Liquidator did not amount to compliance with the direction that had been issued. The later attempt at service could not supply a basis for reopening the dismissed appeal.

Conclusion: The application for restoration was rejected.

---