Restoration application dismissed due to lack of cause and unauthorized representation

The restoration application for appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal due to the appellant's lack of sufficient cause for restoration. The appellant's counsel's non-appearance, mistaken belief regarding another matter, and unauthorized representation by a Senior Assistant were key factors. The Tribunal emphasized the appellant's history of seeking adjournments and lack of authorized representation. Despite the appellant's arguments of diligence and balance of convenience, the Tribunal found their reasons insufficient, particularly given past conduct and repeated adjournment requests. Consequently, the restoration application was dismissed for lack of merit.

---

---

Issues: Restoration application for appeal dismissed for default and non-prosecution.

The judgment pertains to a restoration application filed in reference to the order of the Tribunal dated 15-7-1991, which dismissed the appeal for default and non-prosecution. The appellant's counsel was unable to attend the hearing as they mistakenly believed the appeal was linked to another matter involving the Food Corporation of India. Consequently, the appellant requested their Senior Assistant to attend the hearing assuming it would be adjourned. However, the Tribunal did not acknowledge the request for adjournment on 15-7-1991, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant contended that they were diligent in pursuing the appeal, and the balance of convenience favored restoration. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative opposed the restoration, citing the appellant's lack of serious pursuit of the matter and the unauthorized representation by the Senior Assistant.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant's counsel did not appear, assuming an adjournment, but failed to provide sufficient reasons for non-appearance. The Tribunal's order of 15-7-1991 highlighted the lack of authorized representation and the appellant's history of seeking adjournments despite cautions against further delays. The restoration application merely referenced the mistaken impression about the matter's connection to another case without explaining or substantiating it. The appellant's claim of consulting the Ministry of Law and Justice regarding the counsel's non-appearance was deemed insufficient. Sending an Assistant without proper authorization indicated a lack of caution on the appellant's part. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for restoration, especially considering their past conduct and the repeated adjournment requests despite warnings against further delays. Consequently, the restoration application was dismissed for lack of merit.

---