The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed against the denial of an appeal before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, holding that the delay was inordinate and no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity existed in the CDRF order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931
WP(C).No. 16641 of 2009(A)
-----------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------------
1. R.M. SUDARSHAN, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, PREMIER HOUSE, P.O. PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE.
2. R.M. AJEENA, W/O. R.M. SUDHARSHAN, D/O. MUHAMMED, DHARMAPALAN, KANNUR, KALLIKAVU, MANNUR.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. MR.P.R.VENKETESH
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. GADADHARAN, S/O. BANUPRAKASH, 3/604, MANIPURAM NADAKAVU, KOZHIKODE.
2. R.M. SYLESH, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, PREMIER HOUSE, P.O. PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE.
3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KOZHIKODE.
R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
W.P(C).No.16641 OF 2009
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
1.The petitioners who were respondents 1 and 3 in a proceedings before the CDRF suffered an ex parte order. The third party who contested the matter was the brother of the first opposite party. The petitioners filed application to set aside that ex parte order. That was rejected by the CDRF. The petitioners appealed to the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the main matter and the refusal to set aside the ex parte decision. That appeal was barred by limitation. The application to condone delay and appeal have been dismissed holding that the delay of more than 1400 days has not been appropriately explained and that there is no reason to assume that the petitioners were not aware of the proceedings. The fact that the brother of the first petitioner herein had been contesting the matter, though in his personal capacity, was noticed by the State Commission. It also did not find any ground to interfere on the merits of the
WPC.16641/09
Page numbers
matter, having regard to the fact that the petitioners herein had not shown, even in the appeal memorandum, any ground challenging the findings of the CDRF. The order of the CDRF included the finding that the opposite parties in the proceedings before it had received an amount of Rs.1,75,000/by way of an FD in relation to a commercial transaction. The CDRF had concluded that there is deficiency in service in not returning the said amount with accrued interest.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge.
kkb.20/6.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in the absence of jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the CDRF order.
R.M. SUDARSHAN
R.M. AJEENA
GADADHARAN
R.M. SYLESH
THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KOZHIKODE
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
