Bombay High Court
Bytedance (India) Technology Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India on 27 August, 2024
Author: K. R. Shriram
Bench: K. R. Shriram
2024:BHC-OS:13246-DB
Sayyed 28-WP(L).23724.2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.23724 OF 2024
Bytedance (India) Technology Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
__________
Mr. Sriram Sridharan a/w Ms. Nidhi Doshi and Mr. Shanmuga Dev for
Petitioner.
Ms. Maya Majumdar a/w Mr. Harshad Shingnapurkar for Respondent
Nos.1 and 3.
Mr. Jitendra Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for Respondent No.2.
__________
CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 27th AUGUST 2024
P.C.:
1. Petitioner is impugning an order-in-original dated 6th May
2024 passed by Respondent No.2. The appeal has been dismissed on
the ground that the appeal is filed beyond the limitation provided and
there was no application for condonation of delay and the amount of
pre-deposit has also not been made.
2. With the assistance of the counsels, we have gone through the
petition and the impugned order. In the online portal form filed by
Petitioner, it is correct that the date of communication of the order has
been mentioned as "8th December 2023" instead of "19th December
2023". In the main appeal memo and the averments in the appeal
1 of 3
Sayyed 28-WP(L).23724.2024.doc
memo, the date of communication is correctly mentioned as 19 th
December 2023. Mr. Sridharan submitted that if only Respondent No.2
had considered the appeal memo, he would have realised that there was
actually no delay and the appeal was within time. Mr. Sridharan also
stated that there was an inadvertent error in filling up the online portal,
but if Respondent No.2 had only brought this to the notice of appellant
at the time of personal hearing, it would have been clarified. We agree
with Mr. Sridharan.
3. On the amount of pre-deposit, there is enough evidence
annexed to the petition that a sum of Rs.7,89,09,672/- has been
deposited and even the receipt is annexed to the petition. Therefore, to
say that there is no pre-deposit in the impugned order is incorrect.
4. In the circumstances, Mr. Mishra, in fairness, stated that this
Court may dispose the petition by quashing the impugned order and
remanding it to Respondent No.2 for denovo consideration. Ordered
accordingly.
5. Respondent No.2 shall give personal hearing to Petitioner
once again, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast 5 working
days in advance. The order to be passed shall be a reasoned order
dealing with all submissions of Petitioner. If Respondent No.2 is going
to rely on any order or judgment of any Court or Tribunal or any other
forum, a list thereof shall be made available alongwith the notice for
2 of 3
Sayyed 28-WP(L).23724.2024.doc
personal hearing. If the order or a judgment is unreported then a copy
thereof shall also be made available alongwith the notice. This will
enable Petitioner to deal with / distinguish the judgment or order.
6. If after the personal hearing, Petitioner wishes to submit
written submissions recording what transpired or what was submitted
during the personal hearing, Petitioner may do so within 3 working
days of the personal hearing.
7. The appeal shall be disposed by 30th November 2024.
8. All rights and contentions are kept open to the parties.
9. We clarify that we have not made any observations on the
merits of the matter.
10. Petition disposed.
[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [K. R. SHRIRAM, J.]
Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 29/08/2024 16:26:11 3 of 3
