Allowed

The Branch Manager, v. Thirupurasundari

Madras HC4 Apr 2016CRP(MD)/2243/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 filed by the Branch Manager of State Bank of India against an order rejecting an extension application. The Court directed the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum to receive the petitioner's written objection after the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 1000 within two weeks and hear the matter on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 1000 to respondent within two weeks; forum to accept written objection and hear matter on merits.

The Branch Manager, Vs Thirupurasundari — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 04.04.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.2243 of 2015(PD) and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015

¶7

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, New No.4, Old No.85, Periyar Nagar, Orathanadu Town and Post, Thanjavur District. .. Petitioner/Petitioner/Opposite Party

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Thirupurasundari .. Respondent/Respondent/Complainant

¶10

Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 03.09.2015 in C.M.P.No.55 of 2015 in C.C.No.6 of 2015 on the file of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Thanjavur.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karnan

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Civil Revision Petition is filed, against the order dated 03.09.2015 in C.M.P.No.55 of 2015 in C.C.No.6 of 2015 on the file of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Thanjavur.

¶15

The petitioner is the opposite party in C.C.No.6 of 2015 on the file of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Thanjavur. The respondent filed C.C.No.6 of 2015, for claiming compensation for deficiency in service. The petitioner did not file counter statement within the time granted. Therefore, the petitioner was set exparte. The application in C.M.P.No.55 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner, was allowed on condition that the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.300 to the respondent, on or before 23.09.2015 and directed to list the matter on 30.09.2015. The petitioner filed a memo on 30.09.2015 for extension of time to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pay the cost awarded. The said memo was rejected. Against that order of rejection, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶16

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to the audit work of the Bank, cost was not paid on or before 23.09.2015. The petitioner must be given an opportunity to contest the case on merits. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner has no case on merits and only to drag on the proceedings, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶19

From the records, it is seen that the petitioner has given valid reason, for not paying the cost, within the time granted by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Thanjavur. The said forum ought to have extended the time for payment of the cost and given an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter on merits.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances and contentions of the learned counsel on both side, in the interest of justice, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.1000/- to the respondent, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On filing proof of such payment of cost, the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Thanjavur, is directed to receive the written objection and hear the matter, on merits and pass orders, in accordance with law. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(P&A)

¶23

/TRUE COPY/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Thanjavur.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.G.Karnan, Advocate, Sr.No.18778

¶28

+1cc to Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, Advocate, Sr.No.19000

¶29

PJL

¶30

JM/GSV-PM/SAR-I/26.04.2016/2P-4C

¶31

C.R.P(MD)No.2243 of 2015(PD)

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015 04.04.2016

The Branch Manager, v. Thirupurasundari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager, v. Thirupurasundari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Nisath Vs S.Shajila

Sivagami Vs Sankar

M/S. United India Insurance Vs B. Bahalamurugan

D.Thiagarajan Vs S.Anuradha

Yesubakthan Vs Jaila Rani

R.Jeyachandran Vs S.Parasamal