Tribunal sets disposal date after considering notice issues, warns of record-based decisions if parties fail to appear.

The Tribunal recalled the stay order and subsequent miscellaneous application due to issues with notice delivery and adjournment dates. The appellants' claims of non-receipt of notices and discrepancies in the cause list were considered valid. The Tribunal set a date for the matters' disposal, warning that decisions would be based on records if the appellants failed to appear. No further adjournments were allowed, emphasizing the need for compliance with the scheduled proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Recall of stay order passed in absence of applicants.
2. Consideration of adjournment dates and notice issues.
3. Recalling of subsequent miscellaneous application for stay order.
4. Decision on recalling of stay order and miscellaneous application.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the recall of a stay order passed in the absence of the applicants. The Tribunal had directed the applicants to deposit the demanded amounts within six weeks and report compliance. The applicants filed a miscellaneous application for recalling the stay order, citing absence during the hearing and incorrect dates noted in the order. The Tribunal rejected subsequent applications for recalling, alleging dilatory tactics by the appellants.

2. The Tribunal analyzed the sequence of adjournment dates and notice issues. It was noted that the matter was adjourned multiple times, with discrepancies in the dates noted in the orders. The representative of the main appellant claimed that notices were not being sent to the correct address, leading to non-appearance on specific dates. The Tribunal observed that the short adjournment period between certain dates made it unreasonable to expect proper notice delivery.

3. Addressing the objections raised by the authorized representative, the Tribunal considered the rejection of the miscellaneous application for recalling the stay order. The appellants contended that despite receiving notices, the internet cause list did not reflect the matter being listed, leading to their non-appearance. The Tribunal reviewed the cause list and agreed with the appellants' claim, necessitating the reconsideration of the rejected miscellaneous order.

4. In the final decision, the Tribunal recalled the stay order and the subsequent miscellaneous application for stay order, setting a date for their disposal. All appellants were present during the proceedings, and the Tribunal emphasized no further adjournments would be entertained. The matters were scheduled for disposal, with a warning that decisions would be made based on the records if the appellants failed to appear on the specified date.

---