Order No.4 Dtd.05.09.2024
Today was fixed for passing order in the MA Case.
By virtue of this Commission’s order the case was proceeded ex parte against OP 1 and 2 as written version could not be filed within the stipulated time frame as prescribed by the statute.
The OP Financial Institution i.e. M/S Aditya Birla Finance Ltd., by filing this MA Case has prayed for passing an order setting aside the ex parte order passed by this Commission and for allowing the OPs to contest the case on merit.
The OP of this MA case i.e. the Complainant of this CC case has intimated in writing that they have no objection in this regard.
On perusal of the CC case records it is found that 30.10.2023 was fixed for filing W/V by the OPs. Ld. Advocate for OP 2 on that day appeared by filing power and prayed time for filing W/V on the ground the documents annexed to the complaint petition was not received by them. The Complainant side was directed to supply the annexed documents within ten days and date for filing W/V was fixed afresh on 15.12.2023.
However on 15.12 2023 the Commission was compelled to proceed the case ex parte as none appeared on behalf of OP 2.
However it is stated by the applicant of this MA case in their petition that the Complainant, complying with the time frame fixed by the Commission did not supply the required documents to OP 2.
Reportedly the said documents were supplied to the OP on 12.12.2023 whereas the matter was listed on 15.12.2023.
The Complainant has not expressed any denial in this regard.
OP 2 points out further that as the annexure were served on 12.12.2023 Op 2 was not in a position to prepare the draft W/V and get it ready for filing within 15.12.2023 i.e. the deadline fixed for filing the W/V. In this connection it is further mentioned that OP 2 is carrying on business from its registered office in Gujarat and the legal compliances are being held from its Delhi office.
In view of the above OP 2 claims that there were no latches or any sort of negligence on their part in the matter of non-submission of the W/V within the stipulated date.
However OP 2 appears to have filed W/V along the MA application the copy of which has been received by the Complainant concerned.
Now, on consideration of all the relevant aspects, this Commission is of the opinion that the delayed submission of W/V was not deliberate in nature and OP 2 could not file W/V on the date fixed by the Commission for reasons beyond their control.
In view of the above, this Commission vacates the ex parte order of hearing and opportunities are being granted to OP 2 to contest the CC case.
Resultantly the MA case stands disposed. Tag this folder along with the CC case folder.
