Allowed

Deepa Veer Ganjoo and Ors. v. the Registrar, Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Oct 2016WP/5060/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order closing the petitioners' opportunity to file evidence. The High Court allowed the petition, granting one additional opportunity to file the affidavit of evidence while directing the petitioners to pay Rs. 5000 costs.

What did the court decide?

Grant of one opportunity to the Petitioners to file affidavit of evidence before the State Commission on or before 18th October, 2016, subject to payment of Rs. 5000 costs.

Deepa Veer Ganjoo and Ors. Vs the Registrar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

WP.5060/2016(19)

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 5060 OF 2016

¶6

Deepa Veer Ganjoo & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs.

¶7

The Registrar, Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr. Arif Y. Bookwala, Senior Counsel a/w. Mr. G. Mehta a/w. Mr. F. Frederick, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. Rakesh Singh i/b. M.V. Kini & Co., Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3

¶9

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR &

¶10

M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED :6^TH OCTOBER, 2016

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Matter is not on board. In view of the urgency taken on

¶13

board and heard.

¶14

Parties through their Counsel. Aggrieved by the order dated 8^th

¶15

January 2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai in Consumer Complaint No. CC/12/209 whereby the Petitioners’ / Complainants’ right to file the

¶16

affidavit of evidence has been closed, the petitioners / complainants

¶17

WP.5060/2016(19)

¶18

¶19

have filed this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits

¶21

that though earlier two opportunities were already granted, but due to some unavoidable circumstance the Petitioners / complainants could not file affidavit of evidence as a result the impugned order has been passed causing great hardship to the Petitioners.

¶22

A prayer has been made that the impugned order be set aside and one opportunity to the Petitioners / Complainants to file affidavit of evidence may be granted so that the matter can be decided on merits.

¶23

On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for the

¶24

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has opposed the prayer. He submits that inspite of granting several opportunities the Petitioners failed to file the affidavit of evidence, in the circumstances the State Commission has rightly closed the opportunity to file affidavit of evidence.

¶25

Having considered the submissions made by the learned

¶26

WP.5060/2016(19)

¶27

¶28

Counsel for the parties and having gone through the proceedings as also the impugned order we find that there was sufficient cause for non-filing of the affidavit of evidence on the date fixed for the same. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the Petitioners are ready to compensate the Respondents by payment of costs in the interest of justice we allow the prayer made in the Petition and grant one opportunity to the Petitioners / Complainants to file affidavit of evidence before the State Commission on or before 18^th October, 2016 subject to Petitioners’ paying cost to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the extent of Rs.5000/-.

¶29

Parties to appear on 18^th October, 2016 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai which is the date already fixed by the Commission.

¶30

The Petition is disposed of.

¶31

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

Deepa Veer Ganjoo and Ors. v. the Registrar, Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepa Veer Ganjoo and Ors. v. the Registrar, Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Dattatray Vertak Vs the New India Assurancer Co. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Smt Thamabai Ganpat Patil Shikshan Sanstha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri. Shriram Namdev Shejwal and Ors. Vs Vitthal Ganpat Shejwal and Ors.

Payal Ramchandra Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Shaikh Saniya Mohammed Sadique Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Dnyaneshwar Rajaram Vitole and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.