SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 234

ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE, VINEET SARAN, M.R.SHAH, S.RAVINDRA BHAT
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
for the Appearing Parties :Jayant Sud, Priya Puri, Yati Sharma, Ranjay Dubey, Srishti Sharma, Arvind Kumar Shukla, Reetu Sharma, Nihal Ahmad, Kunal Yadav, Neena Shukla, Kshana Kumari, Alok Shukla, Robin R. David, Febin V. Mathew, Dhiraj A. Philip, Munawwar Naseem, Amit Shukla, Neha Shukla, Deva Shukla, Kumudini Shukla, Vivek Salathia, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Shantanu Jugtawat, Ikshit Singhal, Venkateshwar Rao Anumolu, B. Paramesh, Deepak Kumar Singh, Trideep Pais, N. K. Verma, Anjana Chandrashekhar, Badri Prasad Singh, Neha Chaudhary, Sunit K. Khattri, Nalini Singh, K. Maruthi Rao, K. Radha, Anjani Auyagari, Uday Gupta, Shivani M. Lal, Hiren Dasan, Sarla Chandra, M.K. Tripathi, Chand Qureshi, Hemant Kushwaha, Ashish Gupta, Narayan Chandra Das, Harish Dasan, Bhavin r. Bhatia, Arpit Rai, Sanjeev R. Singh, Amogh Singh, Aviral Kashyap, Dr. Harish Uppal, Tileshwar Prasad, Rahul Gupta, O. P. Gaggar, Aditya Gaggar, Sachindra Karn, Hemant Gupta, Tushar Sharma, Alok Sharma, Sunakshi Gupta, Priyank Jain, Jinendra Jain, P. P. Malhotra, Vineet Malhotra, Mohit Paul, Sunaina Phul, Arvind Gupta, Sandeep Kumar Singh, Anil Kumar Sahu, Piyush Sharma, Prakash Gautam, Sujeet Kumar, Sunil Kumar Pandey, Shekhar Raj Sharma, Sanjeev Sagar, Jinendra Jain, Sudeep Kumar, Samual David, Munawwar Naseem, Manju Jetley, Kapil Joshi, Vibhuti Seth, Balaji Srinivasan, Garima Jain, Pallavi Sengupta, Aishwarya Choudhary, Anini Debbarman, Lakshmi Rao, Vishnu Mehra, Manjeet Chawla, Mahaling Pandarge, Abhijit Sengupta, Vishal Gehrana, Anmol Jassal, For M/s. Karanjawala & Co. M. T. George, Susy Abraham, Johns George, P. S. Sudheer, Rishi Maheshwari, Anne Mathew, Shruti Jose, Balaji Srinivasan, Alok Kumar, Somya Yadava, Snigdha Singh, Ketul Hanshraj, Lav Kumar Agrawal, Usha Garg, Shashikant Mehrotra, Vaibhav Saini, Kundan Kumar Lal, Shivam Singh, Harpreet Singh Gupta, Aditya Raina, Jaideep Khanna, Udian Sharma, Gopal Singh, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Sudeep Kumar, Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Badri Prasad Singh, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Udayaditya Banerjee, O. P. Gaggar, Abhijit Sengupta, Ankit Anandraj Shah, Kundan Kumar Lal, Manju Jetley, Gautam Das, Balaji Srinivasan, Joseph Aristotle S., Mohit Paul, Sumit Sinha, Supriya Juneja, P. V. Yogeswaran, Alok Shukla, Anjani Aiyagari, Jinendra Jain, Anjana Chandrashekar, Munawwar Naseem, Jayant Mohan, Vikas Mehta, Gopal Singh, Arun Aggarwal, M/S. Aura & Co., Pramod Dayal, Manjeet Chawla, A. N. Arora, Ritesh Agrawal, Himanshu Shekhar, Sarla Chandra, Kumar Mihir, Jinendra Jain, N. Rajaraman, Shekhar Kumar, Priya Puri, P. S. Sudheer, Pritha Srikumar, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, S. Mahendran, Varun Punia, Manju Jetley, Aviral Kashyap, Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Gaurav Sharma, Rahul Gupta, M. T. George, Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Dr. Harish Uppal, Taleshwar Prasad, Gagan Gupta, Vikas Mehta, Apoorv Khator, Advocates.

Judgement Key Points

No legal document was provided in your query (the {content} placeholder appears to be empty). Please provide the full content and any specific question or task (e.g., summarize key points, extract clauses, or analyze), and I'll assist accordingly using the specified citation format.


JUDGMENT

Vineet Saran, J.

Leave granted.

2. The reference made to this Constitution Bench relates to the grant of time for filing response to a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'). The first question referred is as to whether Section 13(2) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, which provides for the respondent/opposite party filing its response to the complaint within 30 days or such extended period, not exceeding 15 days, should be read as mandatory or directory; i.e., whether the District Forum has power to extend the time for filing the response beyond the period of 15 days, in addition to 30 days. The second question which is referred is as to what would be the commencing point of limitation of 30 days stipulated under the aforesaid Section.

3. The first question was referred by a two judge Bench of this Court vide an Order dated 11.02.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No(s). 1083-1084 of 2016, M/s Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s Grand Venezia Buyers Association (Reg), the relevant portion of which is as under:

    "There is an apparent conflict between the decisions of this Court in Topline Shoes Limited v.Corporati


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top