Restoration and rectification principles: no apparent error justified recall in one appeal, while another appeal was restored after an overlooked prior application.

Rectification was refused where the appellants could not show any mistake apparent on the face of the record in the earlier order dismissing restoration for delay; the later plea that Committee of Disputes clearance had not been received was not part of the record before that Bench, so no patent error was shown. By contrast, restoration was allowed where an earlier restoration application had already been filed and remained pending, but had not been noticed when the later application was rejected on delay. On that record, the prior adverse order could not stand, and the appeal was restored for hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application seeking rectification/restoration in respect of Appeal No. E/822/2003 disclosed any mistake apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant recall of the order dismissing restoration on the ground of delay; (ii) Whether the restoration application in respect of Appeal No. E/411/2006, which had been filed earlier but not taken up, should be allowed and the appeal restored.

Issue (i): Whether the application seeking rectification/restoration in respect of Appeal No. E/822/2003 disclosed any mistake apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant recall of the order dismissing restoration on the ground of delay.

Analysis: The earlier application had been decided on the basis that the appellants had obtained Committee of Disputes clearance and had delayed the restoration proceedings. In the present proceedings, the appellants failed to show that the factual position placed before the Bench in the earlier round was mistaken on the record or that a patent error had crept into the order. The claim that clearance had never been received had not been brought to the notice of the earlier Bench, and the subsequent plea could not be treated as an apparent mistake warranting rectification.

Conclusion: The application in respect of Appeal No. E/822/2003 was dismissed.

Issue (ii): Whether the restoration application in respect of Appeal No. E/411/2006, which had been filed earlier but not taken up, should be allowed and the appeal restored.

Analysis: The record showed that an earlier restoration application had been filed in 2007 and remained pending, while only the later application was considered and rejected on delay. The earlier filing had not been brought to the notice of the Bench that passed the adverse order. Since the appellants had pursued restoration within a reasonable time and were not at fault for the non-consideration of the earlier application, the prior rejection on the basis of delay could not stand.

Conclusion: The application in respect of Appeal No. E/411/2006 was allowed and the appeal was restored for hearing.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined rectification in one matter but restored the other appeal, resulting in partial relief to the appellants.

---