Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Imperia Structures Ltd. Thru. Authorised Representative Mr. Purushottam Tiwari - Appellant
Versus
Ankur Sharma And Others – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No.2509 of 2024
Decided on : 23-09-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Consumer Protection Act - Condonation of delay - Petition challenging the rejection of an application for condonation of delay of 558 days in filing an appeal - The National Commission found the reasons for delay unconvincing and dismissed the application - The doctrine of merger was discussed, clarifying that the order of the State Commission did not merge with the National Commission's order due to the rejection of the appeal - The petition was dismissed for lack of merit. (Paras 8, 10, 26)
(B) Condonation of Delay - Legal principles - The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay, and mere excuses or negligence do not justify such condonation - The principles from various precedents were reiterated, highlighting the need for a reasonable explanation for each day's delay. (Paras 17, 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the State Commission's order, which was not directly challenged. The delay was attributed to changes in the legal team and a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Findings of Court:
The National Commission's rejection of the application for condonation of delay was upheld, with the court finding no sufficient cause for the delay.
Issues: The main issues were whether the reasons for the delay were sufficient and the applicability of the doctrine of merger.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the reasons provided for the delay were inadequate and emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory limitations. The doctrine of merger was clarified in the context of the appeal process.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.
1. Heard Sri Rishi Kapoor, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and perused the records.
2. The opposite parties no.3 to 7 have been impleaded as proforma opposite parties and, therefore, there is no need to issue notice to them.
3. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 30.04.2024, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No. 244 of 2024 whereby an application for condonation of delay of 558 days in filing the appeal has been rejected, and consequently the Appeal has also been dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties no.1 and 2 has raised the following preliminary objections, namely: -
(ii) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.04.2024, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No.244 of 2024, whereby the National Commission has rejected the prayer for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. in Complaint Case No.185 of 2019, but the validity of the order dated 07.09.2022, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which order was passed against the petitioner has not been challenged by the petitioner. Even if the petition is allowed, the order dated 07.09.2022, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission would remain in force and the order passed by this Court will be a futile order.
(iii) Without challenging the validity of the order dated 07.09.2022, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the petitioner has sought an interim relief for staying the execution of the order dated 07.09.2022, which interim relief, not being incidental to or in aid of any main relief, cannot be granted.
(iv) The petition was filed on 16.05.2024 and the petitioner has concealed the fact that on 09.05.2024 the counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor in Execution Application No.93 of 2022 filed for execution of order dated 07.09.2022, had requested for grant of time for complying with the judgment and order dated 07.09.2022 by making payment of Rs.25,00,000/- on or before 17.05.2024, second installment of Rs.15,00,000/- by 27.05.2024 and the remaining amount on or before 15.06.2024. This request was accepted by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and accordingly time was granted to the petitioner for depositing the entire amount in three installments as aforesaid. A petitioner approaching this court to invoke its discretionary power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should come with clean hands. The aforesaid concealment made by the petitioner renders the petition liable to be dismissed.
(v) The learned counsel for the opposite parties no.1 and 2 has further submitted that having requested for depositing the entire amount in installments which request has been accepted by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the validity of the execution proceedings against it.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been filed through an authorised signatory, who has been duly authorised through a resolution of the board of directors of the petitioner company, therefore th
The court upheld the rejection of a delay condonation application, emphasizing that insufficient reasons do not justify extending statutory limitations.
The High Court under Article 227 reviews lower tribunal orders focusing on merits and procedural propriety, ensuring sufficient grounds are presented for delay condonation in revisions.
(1) Condonation of Delay – According to State Commission, the appellant has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent sufficient reasons to condone such delay.(2) Prescribed period – The app....
Sufficient Cause – ‘Sufficient cause’ means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part and the applicant must satisfy the Court that he wa....
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
