Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. JOSEPH, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Samaresh Prasad Chowdhury - Appellant
Versus
UCO Bank & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8181 Of 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 9268/2017)
Decided On : 21-10-2019
Leave granted - Judicial Member of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - The court found that the observations made against the appellant were unjustified, as there was no power to set aside an ex-parte order as far as the State Commission is concerned, as interpreted by a three-Judge Bench decision in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar, (2011) 9 SCC 541.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Judicial Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, challenged the High Court's order, claiming that the observations made against him were unwarranted both on facts and in law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the appellant's case, stating that the observations made against him were unjustified, and directed that all such observations in the impugned order be expunged.
Issues: The issues revolved around the observations made against the appellant by the High Court, the power to set aside an ex-parte order, and the interpretation of statutory provisions in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of statutory provisions in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly in light of the absence of power to set aside an ex-parte order as far as the State Commission is concerned.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the court directed that all the observations made in the impugned order against the appellant stand expunged.
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 the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
6. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.
7. We are of the view that there is merit in the case of the appellant. The observations which have been made against the appellant herein appear to have been unjustified having regard to the actual statutory provisions contained in the Act in question, as interpreted by this Court in a three-Judge Bench decision in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar, (2011) 9 SCC 541.
8. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. We direct that all the observations which have been made in the impugned order against the appellant will stand expunged.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
