Back
K. M. JOSEPH, A. S. BOPANNA
Samaresh Prasad Chowdhury – Appellant
Versus
UCO Bank – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a Judicial Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission challenging remarks made against him by the High Court, which he claims were unwarranted both factually and legally (!) .
The appellant contended that the High Court's observations were unjustified because, under the relevant statutory provisions, there is no power conferred on the State Commission to set aside an ex-parte order (!) .
The appellant’s case was supported by the interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly regarding the powers of the State Commission to deal with ex-parte orders (!) .
The court found merit in the appellant’s argument, emphasizing that the observations made against him were unwarranted and should be expunged from the record (!) .
The court’s decision was influenced by the interpretation of the statutory provisions, which clarified that the power to set aside ex-parte orders is not available to the State Commission but is limited to other authorities under the Act (!) .
As a result, the appeal was allowed, and all adverse observations made against the appellant in the impugned order were ordered to be expunged (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this document.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant calls in question the order of the High Court, by which the learned single Judge, according to the appellant, has made observations against him which are unwarranted, both on facts and in law.
3. The appellant is a Judicial Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal. According to the appellant, in a case filed against the first respondent-bank on account of non-appearance on behalf of the first respondent-bank, the bank came to be proceeded ex-parte.
4. The case of the first respondent was that though it had approached by filing vakalatnama and seeking to set aside the order which was passed ex-parte, it was not being heeded to.
5. The complaint of the appellant is that the learned single Judge without appreciating the true state of facts and law, has made observations against him. The learned counsel would submit that on authorities, such observations were uncalled for. He would submit that the case of the appellant is that there is no power to set aside ex-parte order, as far as the State Commission is concerned. The amendment which was brought about only empowered the National Commission under Section 22A of
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
