West Bengal

StateCommission

RC/08/97

Duncan Industries Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mani Shankar Dey. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. A. K. Bandhapadhyay.

09 Apr 2009

ORDER


STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION , WEST BENGAL
BHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor), 31 Belvedere Road. Kolkata -700027
REVISION PETITION No. RC/08/97 of 2008
(Arisen out of Order Dated 23/12/2008 of Case No. of District Kolkata Unit-2)

1. Duncan Industries Ltd.		 ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

1. Mani Shankar Dey.		 ...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI 2. MR. A K RAY 3. SMT. SILPI MAJUMDER

For the Appellant :


For the Respondent :




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

 

 

 

 

No. 6/09.04.2009.

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

 

Revision Petitioner through Mr. A. K. Bandhopadhyay, the Ld. Advocate and O.P. through Mr. S. S. Mukherjee, the Ld. Advocate are present.  Heard Mr. Bandhopadhyay, the Ld. Advocate for the Revision petitioner in support of the application for condonation of delay and Mr. Mukherjee, the Ld. Advocate opposing the said application.  The contention of the Revisionist is that the order under challenge was passed on 16.06.2008 and it was admittedly passed ex parte.  It is the case of the Revisionist that notice was served on 25.09.208 and calculating the limitation from that day as the date of knowledge, there is no long delay in preferring the revision considering the holidays intervening.  Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the O.P. produces certified copy of the notice issued by the District Forum which was served on the O.P. on 25.06.2008.  Mr. Mukherjee has also produced authenticated copy of the order dated 25.09.2008 wherefrom it appears that the O.P. did not even appear on that day and accordingly date was fixed for appearance and from the copy of the order dated 31.01.2009 it appears that the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant was present and petition for time was filed for the O.P.   From the records thus it is clear that the Revisionist on 25.06.2008 came to know of the said proceeding and the order passed therein and the statement that notice was served on 25.09.2008 is not correct.  Mr. Bandhopadhyay, the Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist states that Revisionist is a big Company having 400/500 case and so it was not possible for the officer of the Company to know that fact properly.  As we do not find this is an acceptable explanation and there being no material in support thereof we do not accept such contention.  We find long delay has remained unexplained.  Therefore, the condonation of delay application cannot be allowed.  The same is dismissed and the Revision Petition also stands dismissed.  We make it clear that we have not decided the case on merit.

 




......................JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI
......................MR. A K RAY
......................SMT. SILPI MAJUMDER