Back
SAROJ YADAV
Haryana Shehari Vikas Pradhikaran – Appellant
Versus
Col. Satish Kumar Joshi – Respondent
ORDER
The present first appeal has been filed under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the appellant/opposite parties being aggrieved of the order dated 06.09.2024, passed by the learned Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short the ‘State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 86 of 2017.
2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties on the delay condonation application being IA/10221/2025 and the reply filed against that.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the delay was caused, for the reason that the appellant is a Government body and it took time to get the approvals at different levels. The bureaucratic structure, along with necessary scrutiny further contributed for the delay. The delay was a procedural delay only and it is not deliberate or intentional. Hence, the delay may be condoned.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132, Esha Bhattacharjee V. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649 and Navdeep Joh Aguiar Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr. Revision Petition No. 235 of 2023 decided on 23.08.2023.
5. Contrary to it, the lea
(1) Law of Limitation – The law of limitation applies equally to private parties and Government bodies; the State cannot claim a separate period of limitation or special treatment merely on the groun....
Appeal – Limitation – Law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour and Courts have no power to extend period of limitation on equitable grounds.
Condonation of delay not a matter of right.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
