Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the applications for restoration of the appeal, filed after a substantial delay and based on alleged non-receipt of hearing notices and change of address, deserved to be allowed.
Analysis: The applications sought restoration of an appeal earlier decided ex parte. The record showed that the appellant was aware of the proceedings, had participated in earlier stages, and had not informed the authorities about closure of its premises or taken steps to ascertain the status of the appeal for several years. The explanation of change of address and later knowledge of the final order was found insufficient. The long delay was treated as substantial, the conduct was characterised as negligent, and the asserted Covid-19 period was found to be a much later circumstance. The request for restoration was also declined because the final order had already been acted upon by the department.
Conclusion: The applications for restoration were not maintainable on the facts and were rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: A restoration application made after substantial delay will not be allowed in the absence of sufficient cause, particularly where the applicant shows negligence, lack of diligence, and no bona fide effort to follow the proceedings.