R.Piyarelall Import and Export Ltd. Vs. National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Fed. of India - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1059010
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided OnMay-04-2012
JudgeSANJIB BANERJEE
AppellantR.Piyarelall Import and Export Ltd.
RespondentNational Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Fed. of India
Excerpt:
ga no.1046 of 2012 ap no.25 of 2009 in the high court at calcutta ordinary original civil jurisdiction original side r.piyarelall import & export ltd.versus national agricultural co-operative marketing fed. of india before: the hon'ble justice sanjib banerjee date :4. h may, 2012. appearance: mr.ratnanko banerji, adv.mr.pramit kr. roy, adv.the court : sufficient grounds have been made out as to why the applicant could not be represented on june 30, 2009 when ap no.25 of 2009 was dismissed for default. it appears that even after ap no.25 of 2009 was dismissed for default, the parties were not aware of it and orders were passed and at least one substantive order was passed on such petition for which the respondents applied for recalling. it was in cours.of such recalling application that it was discovered that ap no.25 of 2009 had been dismissed on june 30, 2009. it appears that pursuant to a notice issued on behalf of the respondents on june 18, 2009, the matter was mentioned for extension of time to file the affidavit-in-opposition to ap no.25 of 2009. the time was extended by an order of june 22, 2009 by which the adjourned date was fixed four weeks from june 22, 2009. ap no.25 of 2009, however, appeared in the list by mistake on june 30, 2009 and in the absence of the parties the same was dismissed for default. sufficient grounds have been made out as to why the applicant was not represented on the relevant date. the order dated june 30, 2009 is recalled and ap no.25 of 2009 is restored to the file. ap no.25 of 2009 along with the affidavits filed therein when the petition had already been dismissed, will appear as an “adjourned motion”. in the monthly list of june, 2012. this restoration application, ga no.1046 of 2012, is allowed as above despite opposition by the respondents since the order of dismissal was on account of a fault on the part of the court that the matter appeared prior to the adjourned date therefor. there will be no order as to costs. urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (sanjib banerjee, j.) bp. a.r(c.r)
Judgment:

GA No.1046 of 2012 AP No.25 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE R.PIYARELALL IMPORT & EXPORT LTD.Versus NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FED.

OF INDIA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :

4. h May, 2012.

Appearance: Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, Adv.Mr.Pramit Kr.

Roy, Adv.The Court : Sufficient grounds have been made out as to why the applicant could not be represented on June 30, 2009 when AP No.25 of 2009 was dismissed for default.

It appears that even after AP No.25 of 2009 was dismissed for default, the parties were not aware of it and orders were passed and at least one substantive order was passed on such petition for which the respondents applied for recalling.

It was in couRs.of such recalling application that it was discovered that AP No.25 of 2009 had been dismissed on June 30, 2009.

It appears that pursuant to a notice issued on behalf of the respondents on June 18, 2009, the matter was mentioned for extension of time to file the affidavit-in-opposition to AP No.25 of 2009.

The time was extended by an order of June 22, 2009 by which the adjourned date was fixed four weeks from June 22, 2009.

AP No.25 of 2009, however, appeared in the list by mistake on June 30, 2009 and in the absence of the parties the same was dismissed for default.

Sufficient grounds have been made out as to why the applicant was not represented on the relevant date.

The order dated June 30, 2009 is recalled and AP No.25 of 2009 is restored to the file.

AP No.25 of 2009 along with the affidavits filed therein when the petition had already been dismissed, will appear as an “Adjourned Motion”.

in the monthly list of June, 2012.

This restoration application, GA No.1046 of 2012, is allowed as above despite opposition by the respondents since the order of dismissal was on account of a fault on the part of the Court that the matter appeared prior to the adjourned date therefor.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) bp.

A.R(C.R)