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

J.M.MALIK, VINAY KUMAR
Sri Santi Ranjan Chatterjee – Appellant
Versus
Anuj Kumar Ray – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant/Applicant :Mr. Ramekbal Roy, Advocate.

ORDER

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member— There is delay of 557 days’ in filing this first appeal. The impugned judgment pertains to 27.02.2009.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant. He submits that he has submitted two applications, one for restoration of appeal which was dismissed in default on 08.12.2011 and other for condonation of delay in filing this first appeal.

3. The appellant/applicant has explained the reasons for the delay in para No.3 of his application, which is reproduced below.

“3. That the Appellant herein handed over all the Briefs, documents and papers to the earlier Ld. Advocate, Biswajit Nag, Advocate to Calcutta High Court to file the instant Appeal before this National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, but noting has done on his part till dated 31st August, 2010, even the said briefs/ documents/papers have not handed over till dated 17.09.2010 to the appellant, therefore, due to unavoidable circumstance the Appellant has been filed the instant Appeal before this National Commission by aforesaid period of delay and its may be condone for the ends of justice”.

It is noteworthy that the dates mentioned above, i.e. 31.08.2010 and 17.09.















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