1. Appeal against NCDRC order refusing adjournment and deciding a complaint on merits without hearing the opposite party's final arguments. (Para 7 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1800
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
ARN Infrastructure India Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Hara Prasad Ghosh – Respondent
Civil Appeal No..............of 2023 [Civil Appeal Diary No. 31182 of 2023]
Decided On : 04-09-2023
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Amrita Sarkar
For the Respondents: Devvrat, Swati Setia
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Amrita Sarkar
For the Respondents: Devvrat, Swati Setia
The Supreme Court held that refusing a party a reasonable opportunity to address final arguments, even if they failed to file a written version or Vakalatnama, violates the principles of natural justice, necessitating a remand for a fair hearing on the merits.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Right to be heard - Principles of Natural Justice - Delay in appeal - Delay of 249 days condoned on grounds of company restoration - NCDRC's refusal to grant adjournment led to violation of principles of natural justice; hence, the matter remanded for re-hearing. (Paras 5, 9, 10)
(B) Right to address arguments - Opposite party entitled to present its case even without filing a written version; failure to allow adjournment prejudiced their rights. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, whose company was restored after being struck off, appealed against NCDRC’s order which refused to grant an adjournment to the appellant’s counsel leading to a decision made without their input.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the NCDRC's refusal to grant the adjournment was improper, leading to a violation of natural justice; thus, the appeal was allowed and the matter remanded for reconsideration.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the refusal of the NCDRC to grant an adjournment breached principles of natural justice affecting the appellant's right to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the opposite party must have the opportunity to present their arguments, which was undermined by the NCDRC's decision, and remanded the case for full consideration.
Result: Appeals allowed and matter remanded to NCDRC.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant seeks condonation of delay and argues violation of natural justice; respondent objects to condonation and the request for adjournment. (Para 3 , 4 , 7 )
3. Refusing a request for adjournment to address final arguments, despite the absence of a written version, constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. (Para 9 )
4. A party possesses the right to address final arguments on merits regardless of whether a written version was filed during the proceedings. (Para 9 )
5. Impugned orders set aside and matter remanded to NCDRC to grant both sides a reasonable opportunity to address arguments on merits. (Para 9 , 10 , 13 )
6. Can delay in filing an appeal be condoned if the company was struck off and subsequently restored?
Yes, the court may find sufficient cause to condone the delay if the appellant demonstrates that the delay was caused by the company being struck off and subsequently restored. (Para 3 , 5 )
7. Does the failure to file a written version preclude a party from addressing final arguments?
No. A party retains the right to address final arguments on the merits of a case even if they have not filed a written version or participated in earlier proceedings. (Para 9 )
8. Does the refusal of a short adjournment for final arguments constitute a violation of natural justice?
Yes, if a party is denied a reasonable opportunity to address arguments on merits, it constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice, warranting the setting aside of the order. (Para 9 )
ORDER :
1. Issue notice on the application seeking condonation of delay as well as in the appeals.
2. There is delay of 249 days in filing this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the company was struck off and there afterwards has been restored, hence, the delay.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently objected to any condonation of delay.
5. However, for the reasons stated by the appellant we find sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Hence, application seeking condonation of delay is allowed.
6. Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, these appeals are heard finally.
7. The appellant (opposite party) is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.10.2022 by which the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “NCDRC” for the sake of convenience) in Complaint Case No. 1456/2019 refused to grant time to the appellants counsel who has sought for an adjournment of the case on behalf of the opposite party before the NCDRC and proceeded to consider the complaint on merits and allowed the complaint directing return of the entire amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite party/appellant herein with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the deposit till the actual payment, within a period of two months from the date of the judgment being 27.10.2022. Subsequently Miscellaneous Application No. 128/2023 was filed in the complaint, seeking recalling of the order dated 27.10.2022 in the said application. The said application was also rejected. Hence, these appeals.
8. We have heard Ms. Amrita Sarkar learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Devvrat, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
9. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that a proxy counsel appeared for the counsel for the appellant/Opposite party herein before the NCDRC, seeking an adjournment of the case. Although the opposite party had not filed its version and may not have participated in the proceedings before the NCDRC, nevertheless, had the right to address final arguments before the NCDRC. In order to do so a short adjournment was sought by the appellant/opposite party before the NCDRC. However, the NCDRC refused to grant the adjournment for the reasons that no written version had been filed by the appellant/opposite party before the NCDRC. In fact learned counsel for the respondent brings to our notice that even Vakalatnama was not filed on behalf of the appellant/ opposite party before the NCDRC. However, the fact remains that the counsel was engaged to seek an adjournment in order to address arguments on merits. The opposite party had the right to do so even in the absence of filing its written version against the complaint. Since the request for adjournment was refused and only the complainant was heard on merits, we find that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. On that short ground alone the impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remanded to the NCDRC in order to grant a reasonable opportunity to both sides to address arguments on merits in the said complaint.
10. Since both parties are represented by their respective counsel, they shall appear before the NCDRC on 20.09.2023 without expecting any separate notices from the NCDRC. On the said date or on any other convenient date, the NCDRC shall hear the learned counsel for the respective parties on the merits of the complaint and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
11. If the appellant/opposite party before the NCDRC has not filed its Vakalatnama it shall be permitted to do so on or before 20.09.2023.
12. It is needless to observe that if both parties cooperate with the NCDRC, the complaint may be disposed of in an expeditious manner.
13. The appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
