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

ASHOK BHAN, VINEETA RAI
HUDA – Appellant
Versus
SHAKUNTALA DEVI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. R.S. Badhran, Advocate, for the Appellant; None., for the Respondent

ORDER

1. Against the order of the District Forum, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission. An application for condonation of delay of 181 days was also filed. The State Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal as barred by time by observing:

"It has been expressly provided in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that any person aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed. The proviso contained therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of period of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the stipulated period. The expression 'sufficient cause' has not been defined in the Act, rightly so, as it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case. At the same time while examining the question of condonation of delay, it has to be kept in mind that it is the duty of the condoning authority to record satisfaction of the explanation submitted as to whether it is re

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