Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

M/S Anmol Financial Services Ltd vs Babu Lal on 27 August, 2011

     IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE
        (EAST) cum ADDL. RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL,
                 KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI


M­71/11
Unique Case ID No.02402C0255072011 

M/s Anmol Financial Services Ltd.                         ...Petitioner

                               Versus

Babu Lal                                                  ... Respondent

O R D E R

By this order, I shall dispose of present application moved by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 4 CPC for restoration of the petition dismissed in default on 19.08.11. Facts leading to filing of the present application are that on 19.08.2011 petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of the petitioner was dismissed inasmuch as none appeared on behalf of the petitioner or its counsel despite matter having been taken up several times. 2 In the application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC, it is averred that on 19.08.2011, counsel of petitioner had severe stomach M­71/2011 M/s Anmol Financial Services Ltd. vs. Babu Lal Page 1 of 2 ache and could not contact even authorized representative of the petitioner as he too was out of station for some official work. It is further averred that counsel for the petitioner had requested Ms Archana Advocate to appear in the matter on her behalf and apprise the Court regarding her non­availibility. However, Ms Archana also could not appear due to her engagement in some other Court and after 4.00 p.m., she came to know that matter had been dismissed in default.

3 The ground taken by the counsel for the petitioner for non appearance on 19.08.2011 was that she was ill on that day and the Advocate authorized by her to appear in her place also could not appear. Contents of the application are duly supported by an affidavit of the counsel of the petitioner. Non appearance of the counsel on 19.08.2011 does not appear to be intentional or deliberate. Therefore, application is allowed and consequently petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is restored to its original number. 

Announced in the open Court                         ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 27.08.2011                                District Judge (East)
                                           Addl. Rent Control Tribunal
                                           Karkardooma Courts : Delhi

M­71/2011      M/s Anmol Financial Services Ltd. vs. Babu Lal              Page 2 of 2