M/s. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. V. Hotels Ltd. - DRAT dismissed the application for restoration of appeals which were dismissed in default, observing; "The law does not come to the assistance of those who sleep over their rights."

DRAT Mumbai (27.04.2022) in M/s. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. V. Hotels Ltd. [M.A. No. 1/2021 in (Appeal No. 130/2016 – Disposed of) and M.A. No. 2/2021 in (Appeal No. 54/2016 – Disposed of)] dismissed the application for restoration of appeals which were dismissed in default, observing;

• The law does not come to the assistance of those who sleep over their rights.

Excerpts of the order;

# 1. In these Appeals Appellants have challenged orders in two applications viz. I.A. No. 176/2015, dated 01.09.2015 and I.A. No. 752/2015, dated 18.01.2016, both passed in Original Application (O.A.) No. 228 of 2005 on the file of D.R.T.-II, Mumbai. These M.As. are filed for restoration of the Appeals dismissed for default.

 

# 2. These Appeals have been pending since 2016. In 2018 as is evident from Annexure B, that the counsel who was appearing for Appellant submitted ‘no instructions’ and in view of that also returned the files to the Appellant, and vide letter dated 28.05.2018 addressed to one Mr. Manzar / Devang, Officials working with Appellant, informing them about status of these matters.

 

# 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that it was someone else who was dealing with these files and that person had resigned from the company. An affidavit has been filed now by Manzar Abbas, the Authorized Officer of Appellant, which is filed as an annexure to the Application for Restoration.

 

# 4. It is also pertinent to note that ARCIL was prosecuting the matter before the N.C.L.T., Mumbai and the matter pending before the N.C.L.T. was heard on 29.05.2019 and disposed on 31.05.2019 by granting moratorium, which is seen from the Annexure ‘C’. In the said proceedings, Appellant had filed its claim on 17.06.2019 and the same was admitted. The Appellant was thus prosecuting the matter before the N.C.L.T. diligently.

 

# 5. Appellant would contend that because of several intervening facts like the resignation of the officer who was dealing with and in-charge of the files, there was some default on the part of the officers in pursuing the matter before this Tribunal. From the order which is now sought to be set aside, it specifically states that there was no representation for the Appellant on several postings and despite the counsel for the Appellant has submitted no instructions on 28.05.2018, both these Appeals were disposed of only on 02.01.2020.

 

# 6. Under these circumstances I find that there were gross latches on the part of the Appellant in prosecuting these Appeals. The law does not come to the assistance of those who sleep over their rights. The Appellant is a company and it cannot be said that there is only one officer looking after the affairs of the company and that there will always be a team of officers attending to the duty. Such latches on the part of the officials or company cannot

be condoned.

 

# 7. These applications for restorations have been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for Respondents on the very same grounds, which I have mentioned earlier.

 

# 8. I find no substance in these applications and hence both these Misc. Applications for restoration of Appeals are dismissed as without merit and not sustainable.

 

---------------------------------------------------