NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AVM J. Rajendra, President, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member
Dr. Jagtesh Singh Sidhu – Appellant
Versus
M/s. ATM Estate Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. justification required for delay. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. discretionary criteria for delay condonation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. sufficient cause must be proven. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. outcome of appeal based on delay. (Para 15 , 16) |
Dated : 25.02.2026
ORDER (ORAL)
1. As per the report of the Registry, there is a delay of 182 days (181 days as per the Appellant) in filing this Appeal. The Appellant thus filed IA No. 1974 of 2026 seeking delay condonation. In the said IA, it is contended that the Appellant is a senior citizen residing at Amritsar, Punjab. The Appellant was represented before the State Commission by a local counsel and the complaint was partly allowed. However, being aggrieved by the quantum of relief granted, the Appellant desired to prefer this Appeal seeking enhancement of the reliefs. In view of the partial relief granted, the Appellant took some time to consult the counsel who appears before the State Commission and to seek legal advice with regard to the advisability and prospects of filing this Appeal. Thereafter, the record of the case was handed over to the present counsel for the Appellant at New Delhi in October 2025. Further time was consumed in procu
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.