NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2821/2013

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUKUND MAHADEO BARVE & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. ASA LAW FIRM

12 Sep 2014

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 2821 OF 2013
 
(Against the Order dated 24/08/2012 in Appeal No. 727/2012 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA
SAHAKARNAGAR BRANCH,
PUNE
MAHARASHTRA-411009
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. MUKUND MAHADEO BARVE & ANR.
R/O. 1211-B, AMIT APARTMENT SHIVAJI NAGAR APTE ROAD,
PUNE-4
MAHARASHTRA
2. MULIND MUKUND BARVE
R/O.1211-B, AMIT APARTMENT, SHIVAJI NAGAR APTE ROAD,
PUNE-4
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Sidharth Garg, proxy counsel for Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent :

Dated : 12 Sep 2014
ORDER

Petitioner has not complied with the order dated 04.08.2014 till date and the same read as under:-

For the Petitioner : Mr.  Siddharth Garg, proxy counsel  

                              on behalf of Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate  

                Dated :  4th August,  2014

                     ORDER

 

          It is stated that arguing counsel Sh.Atul Sharma, Advocate for  petitioner is busy in High Court.

          As per Vakalatnama, petitioner has engaged four counsels. Proxy counsel for petitioner states that two advocates have already left but fourth one is busy in Supreme Court.

          Present petition came up for hearing for the first time before this Commission on 23.08.2013. On that date, counsel for petitioner sought time to remove the defects. Two weeks’ time was granted to petitioner to remove the defects.

          Thereafter on 19.11.2013, again time of three weeks’ was sought by the petitioner. That request was allowed and matter was adjourned to 08.01.2014.

        On 08.01.2014, one proxy counsel Ms. Humera Niyazi appeared and it was stated that arguing counsel Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for petitioner is busy in Dwarka Courts and defects were not removed at that time.

          After perusal of the record we found that translated copy of the District Forum’s order is incomplete.

          Since, none of arguing counsel for petitioner is present nor  petitioner has removed the defects completely under these circumstances, in the interest of justice, last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file complete translated copy of the District Forum’s order within four weeks, subject to payment of adjournment cost of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only).

          Cost be deposited by way of demand draft in the name of ‘Consumer Legal Aid Account’ of this Commission within four weeks.

          In case, petitioner fails to comply with above directions within the prescribed period, then present revision petition shall stand dismiss automatically, without any further order.

          Alongwith present revision petition, an application seeking condonation of delay of 202 days has also been filed.

List on 12.09.2014 for disposal of application for condonation of delay.”

 

Since the order dated 04.08.2014 was conditional one and the same has not been complied within the specified period, present revision petition stands dismissed.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the petitioner for information.

 

 
......................J
V.B. GUPTA
PRESIDING MEMBER

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.