Maharashtra

StateCommission

MA/09/783

ICICI BANK LTD & ORS - Complainant(s)

Versus

MR MICHAEL CARDOZA - Opp.Party(s)

MANNADIAR & CO

14 Oct 2010

ORDER


BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Miscellaneous Application No. MA/09/783
1. ICICI BANK LTD & ORSMUMBAIMaharastra ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. MR MICHAEL CARDOZAMUMBAIMaharastra ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBERHon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale Member
PRESENT :MANNADIAR & CO, Advocate for the Appellant 1 S.Gokhale, Advocate for the Respondent 1

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.

ORDER

There is delay of 90 days in filing the appeal and therefore, applicant/appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit.  In condonation of delay application in para 3 the bank has tried to make out a sufficient case for not filing the appeal within statutory period of 30 days.  Appellant has mentioned in para 3 that as per office procedure and practice they have forwarded the copy of judgement to their Banjara hills Branch at Hyderabad on December 18, 2008.  Appellant then sought permission from the Senior Legal Managr to file the appeal and after the permission was given requested another advocate to file the appeal.  Certified Copies of the papers were applied for and obtained on March 9, 2009 and the appeal was prepared for filing.  Therefore there is delay of 90 days in filing appeal.  Adv.Mannadiar has relied upon a landmark judgment delivered in case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another V/s. Mst. Katihi and others AIR 1987 S.C.1353.  In para 3 Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly mentioned that delay condonation application should be normally allowed because cases should be decided primarily on merits.  It further observed that litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.  There is presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides.  A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay.  In fact, he runs a serious risk.  It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds b t because it is capable or removing injustice and is expected to do so.”  So relying on this sermons of Apex Court, we are of the view that delay of 90 days be condoned liberally and generously but of course subject to payment of heavy cost.  So, we are inclined to allow the delay condonation application though Adv.Gokahle for respondent has strongly opposed the said application.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

 

                                :-ORDER-:

 

1.     M.A.No.09/783 for condonation of delaty is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- payable by the appellant to the respondent.     

2.     M.A.No.09/783 stands disposed of.

3.     Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 14 October 2010

[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar]PRESIDING MEMBER[Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale]Member