Sudhakar V Narvekar vs CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED on 28 October 2026

28.10.2026 Exh Roznama-MDRT-III M.A. No.66 of 2026 Next date

Mr Herbert Noronha, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr Alok Mishra and Ms Juilee Modak, Advocate for Respondent. The Applicants has preferred this M.A. praying to set aside the dismissal order dated 20.02.2026 and for restoration of the S.A. No.270 of 2023 in the file. Ld. Advocate for the Applicants submitted that on 19.08.2024, 21.11.2024 and 24.03.2025 when the matter was listed before the Ld. Registrar, none of the parties appeared and matter was placed before this Tribunal for appropriate order on 20.06.2025. Meanwhile, Mr D.B. Patel, Advocate on record passed away. On 20.06.2025, the said fact was brought to the notice during hearing before this Tribunal by Applicant No.1 and Applicant No.1 requested time to file vakalatnama of another advocate and matter was put before the Ld. Registrar on 28.08.2025. Accordingly, the Applicants engaged another advocate. However, order-sheet dated 28.08.2025 and 05.12.2025 reveal that the said advocate did not appear before the Ld. Registrar on the said dates and matter was listed for appropriate order before this Tribunal on 20.02.2026. Ld. Advocate further submitted that on 19.02.2026, the newly appointed advocate informed the

Applicants that the matter is listed on 20.02.2026 and he would not be able to appear and that a junior advocate would appear on his behalf on 20.02.2026. In view of the above, on 20.02.2026, the Applicants personally attempted to remain present before this Tribunal but, due to his ailment and medical condition, the Applicants could not reach this Tribunal in time. So, the matter got dismissed on 20.02.2026. Hence, the Applicants prays to allow the present M.A. and restore the S.A. No.270 of 2023. Ld. Advocate for Respondent opposed and submitted that the present proceeding is the second round of litigation initiated by the Applicants in relation to the same underlying dispute and secured asset. The Applicants earlier filed S.A. No.214 of 2022 was disposed of as infructuous. Therefore, the Applicants filed the present S.A. No.270 of 2023. The Applicants cannot be permitted to disregard the history of the proceedings and seek repeated opportunities to litigate the same controversy. In the present case, the Applicants remain unattended on multiple dates. On repeated absence of the Applicants or their advocate and without establishing any sufficient bonafide and legally acceptable cause, the Applicants are seeking restoration of the S.A. No.270 of 2023. Hence, M.A. No.66 of 2026 should be dismissed. Considered the arguments of Ld. Advocate for the rst-16 parties in M.A. No.66 of 2026. Perused the record. It is evident from the record that on 19.08.2024, 21.11.2024, 24.03.2025, the Applicants could not remain present to prosecute the matter. However, the Applicants informed that earlier advocate Mr D.B. Patel passed away and this Tribunal granted time to file vakalatnama of new advocate and matter was listed before the Ld. Registrar on 28.08.2025. It is evident from the record that on 28.08.2025 and 05.12.2025, the Applicants were again not present and failed to file vakalatnama of newly appointed advocate. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, M.A. No.66 of 2026 is dismissed with no order as to costs. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.

Sd/- P.O. DRT-II

Closed