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

Narayan Singh Rotella – Appellant
Versus
Bell Ceremics Ltd. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

S.K.M. Lodha, President - There is a bar of limitation in this appeal and as such only those facts will be noticed which are necessary for deciding this question. The District Forum, Ajmer by its order dated 18.7.1990 dismissed the complaint of the complainant-appellant. The appeal was filed on 20.9.1990. An application for the certified copy of the order appealed against was made on 9.8.1990. The certified copy was delivered on 17.8.1990. Time requisite in obtaining the certified copy is nine days. Period prescribed for filing the appeal is thirty days. The appeal was filed 64 days after the pronouncement of the order. Thus, it has been presented 25 days after expiry of the period of limitation. Office reported that the appeal is barred by limitation. With the memo of appeal an application for condonation of delay was submitted. It was accomplained by an affidavit of the complainant appellant. The affidavit bears the date 14.9.1990. It was sworn on 17.9.1990. It is to be seen whether the complainant-appellant has succeeded in making out a sufficient cause for the belated presentation of the appeal. S. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for appeal. The period












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