Allowed

Kirti Daalmill Ltd. Thr Authorised Officer v. the Dy.Executive Engineer, M.S.E.D.Co.Ltd and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Apr 2013WP/569/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order dismissing an appeal in default and restored the petition. Petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 5,000 to respondents within three weeks to avail the fresh opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order on non-appearance quashed; appeal restored; petitioner directed to pay Rs. 5,000 costs to respondents within three weeks.

Kirti Daalmill Ltd. Thr Authorised Officer Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

8 wp.569.13.

¶3

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 569 OF 2013

¶5

Kirti Daalmil Limited,

¶6

having its office at Plot No.G.90, MIDC Latur, through its Authorized Officer, Mr. Vijay s/o Chandrakant Dalal, Age : 44 Yrs., Occ : Service, R/o. : Prakash Nagar, Latur. ... PETITIONER

¶7

V E R S U S

¶8

1] The Dy. Executive Engineer, Sub-Divisional Urban Branch, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, having its office at Sale Galli, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.

¶9

2] The Superintendent Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Sale Galli, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.

¶10

3] The Chief Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Sale Galli, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ... RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr. Amit A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P.B. Paithankar, Advocate for the Respondents. -----

¶12

¶13

8 wp.569.13.

¶14

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 25th April, 2013.

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶16

1 Rule.

¶17

2 Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶18

3 The appeal filed by the Petitioner before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission is dismissed in default.

¶19

4 Mr. Mukhedkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in fact in the handwritten Roz-nama, the date was not clearly noticed by the Petitioner and as such, could not attend the matter. The date was wrongly noted by the Advocate and because of the same, the Advocate could not attend the matter nor could deposit the costs as was levied by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.

¶20

5 Mr. Paithankar, learned counsel for the Respondents supports the order and submits that ample opportunity has been granted by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. For four days, the Petitioner remained absent. Twice the cost of Rs.500/(Rupees Five Hundred Only) was imposed upon the Petitioner, the said cost is also not deposited. No discretion can be exercised in favour of

¶21

¶22

8 wp.569.13.

¶23

such a litigant. Even the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has dismissed the complaint on merits.

¶24

6 With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the order. The complaint filed by the Petitioner before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission is dismissed. Naturally, the Petitioner would not gain by prolonging or protracting the proceedings in appeal. The Petitioner has given the reasons for nonappearance. There is no ground to disbelieve the said reasons given. It is stated that the Advocate inadvertently noted the wrong date. Considering the above, I am inclined to grant on more opportunity to the Petitioner, however, the Petitioner also deserves to be mulct with costs.

¶25

7 In light of the above, I pass the following order:

¶26

I. The impugned order dated 23rd November, 2012 is quashed and set aside and the appeal is restored to its original position on condition that the Petitioner pays costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Respondents within a period of (3) three weeks from today.

¶27

II. If the cost is deposited before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission,

¶28

¶29

8 wp.569.13.

¶30

the Respondents are entitled to withdraw the

¶31

same.

¶32

III. Rule is made absolute in above terms. However, with no order as to costs of this petition.

¶33

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶34

ndm

Kirti Daalmill Ltd. Thr Authorised Officer v. the Dy.Executive Engineer, M.S.E.D.Co.Ltd and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kirti Daalmill Ltd. Thr Authorised Officer v. the Dy.Executive Engineer, M.S.E.D.Co.Ltd and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashru Bajirao Aglawae Vs Javedkhan Kasamkhan and Another

Leelabai Savleram Wakchaure Vs Ashok Savleram Wakchaure and Others

Devram Babu Avhad and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vikram Shridharrao Deshmukh and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vishwambhar Narhari Somwanshi Vs Tukaram Sakharam Bansode Died Lrs Gayabai Tukaram Bansode and Ors.

Shobha Uttamrao Bobde @ Shobha Marotrao Jadhav Vs Kachrabai Marotrao Bobde and Ors.