Committee on Disputes clearance remained necessary after remand-based fresh adjudication, defeating restoration of the appeal.

Restoration of an appeal after remand was treated as arising from a fresh adjudication, because the subsequent order determined different amounts and generated a new cause of action. On that footing, clearance from the Committee on Disputes remained necessary in a dispute between a Central Ministry and a public sector undertaking. As such clearance was not shown, the restoration application was held not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether restoration of the appeal was maintainable without clearance from the Committee on Disputes where the impugned order arose from a fresh adjudication passed after remand.

Analysis: The appeal against the original adjudication had been disposed of by remand, and the subsequent adjudication order, confirming different amounts, gave rise to a fresh cause of action. In view of the principle requiring clearance from the Committee on Disputes in disputes between Central Ministries and public sector undertakings, the restoration application was examined on the footing that such clearance remained necessary.

Conclusion: The application for restoration was not maintainable and was rejected.

---