Baldev Singh VS Omaxe Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

A. P. SAHI, BHARATKUMAR PANDYA
Baldev Singh – Appellant
Versus
Omaxe Ltd. – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate Mr. Prakhar Srivastav, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Mukti Bodh, Advocate

ORDER :

A.P. Sahi, President.—These two appeals arise out of a similar nature of two separate orders passed on 20.03.2023 in CC/86/2019 and CC/87/2019, whereby the SCDRC, New Delhi dismissed the complaints for non- prosecution. Both the complaints were handled by the same learned counsel and the orders being identical, we have proceeded to hear both the matters simultaneously.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the appearance by the counsel before the State Commission was defaulted and that the appellants were under the impression that the case is being attended to and they were not made aware of the listing of the cases on the dates fixed. The complainants have also alleged that they were not aware of the impugned orders dated 20.03.2023 and it is only when they checked the website on 18.04.2023, that they came to know of the same, whereafter they collected the papers and have preferred these appeals on 31.10.2023 and 05.01.2024, respectively.

3. Thus, the default in appearing before the State Commission as well as the delay in the filing of the present appeals have been explained in the delay condonation applications being IA/3181/2024 and IA/3183/2024, which are