Skip to content


Krishnamai Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Ghonashi Thru Its Chairman and Others Vs. Mr. Ajit Mohan Chavan, Thru Its Power of Attorney Holder, Dist. SatarA. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Decided On

Case Number

First Appeal No.1004 of 2009 @ Misc.Appl.Nos.1218 & 1219 of 2009 (In Consumer Complaint No.126 of 2008)

Judge

Appellant

Krishnamai Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Ghonashi Thru Its Chairman and Others

Respondent

Mr. Ajit Mohan Chavan, Thru Its Power of Attorney Holder, Dist. SatarA.

Advocates:

Mr. U.R. Patil, Advocate for the Applicants-Appellants.

Excerpt:


.....consumer disputes redressal forum satara (‘forum below in short). there is delay of one year in filing appeal. therefore, misc. application no.1218/2009 is filed to condone the same. we heard mr.u.r. patil, advocate for the applicants-appellants on delay condonation application. there is not a single statement on fact averted in the application on the basis of which it could be shown that there is sufficient cause to condone the delay. fact of appointing administrator over the society and stating that there is a sufficient cause to condone the delay is not at all sufficient to establish that the delay is satisfactory explained. applicants failed to justify the delay caused in filing appeal. we hold accordingly and pass the following order:- order: 1. misc. appl. no.1218/2009 for condonation of delay stands dismissed. 2. the appeal is not entertained accordingly. 3. misc. appl. no.1219/2009, which is for stay stands disposed of as infructuous. 4. copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Judgment:


Oral Order:

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member

Applicants-appellants wanted to challenge the impugned order/award dated 24/06/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.126/2008 Mr.A.M. Chavan V/s. Krishnamai Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. and Ors. by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Satara (‘Forum below in short).

There is delay of one year in filing appeal. Therefore, Misc. Application No.1218/2009 is filed to condone the same.

We heard Mr.U.R. Patil, Advocate for the applicants-appellants on delay condonation application.

There is not a single statement on fact averted in the application on the basis of which it could be shown that there is sufficient cause to condone the delay. Fact of appointing Administrator over the Society and stating that there is a sufficient cause to condone the delay is not at all sufficient to establish that the delay is satisfactory explained. Applicants failed to justify the delay caused in filing appeal. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

Order:

1. Misc. Appl. No.1218/2009 for condonation of delay stands dismissed.

2. The Appeal is not entertained accordingly.

3. Misc. Appl. No.1219/2009, which is for stay stands disposed of as infructuous.

4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //