Tribunal Dismisses Restoration Application Citing Negligence and Delay in Filing Without Sufficient Cause.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous application for restoration of appeal due to negligence and an inordinate delay in filing. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to inform the High Court about the pending appeal and did not promptly approach the Tribunal after the High Court's decision. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of diligence and timely action, finding no sufficient cause for the delay, and upheld the dismissal of the restoration application.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the restoration of appeal dismissed by the Tribunal, the availability of alternative remedies, negligence on the part of the appellant, and the delay in filing the restoration application.

Restoration of Appeal:
The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking restoration of appeal dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had observed that pursuing remedies in both forums simultaneously is not permissible. The High Court later dismissed the appellant's appeal, stating that an alternative remedy was available. The appellant claimed they were unaware of the dismissal order and only found out about it in 2021, leading to the filing of the restoration application.

Availability of Alternative Remedies:
The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, emphasizing the availability of alternative remedies. The court held that there were no legal infirmities justifying interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The dismissal was based on the lack of illegality or arbitrariness warranting court intervention.

Negligence and Delay:
The Revenue objected to the restoration application, citing negligence on the part of the appellant. It was noted that the appellant did not inform the High Court about the pending appeal before the Tribunal. The application for restoration was filed four years after the dismissal order, and even after the High Court's decision, the appellant did not approach the Tribunal promptly. The Tribunal found no merit in the restoration application due to the significant delay and lack of plausible reasons justifying the delay.

Judicial Observations:
The Tribunal, considering the submissions from both sides, highlighted the negligence and inordinate delay in filing the restoration application. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of bonafides and diligence on the part of the party seeking relief. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision and held that the application for restoration should have been filed within a reasonable period. Due to the negligence and lack of sufficient cause for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application for restoration of appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous application for restoration of appeal, citing negligence, inordinate delay, and lack of sufficient cause for the delay. The appellant's failure to promptly approach the Tribunal after the High Court's decision led to the dismissal of the restoration application. The importance of diligence and timely action in legal proceedings was underscored in the judgment.

---