Maharashtra

StateCommission

MA/11/2

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TOYATA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SALAUDDIN THAKUR - Opp.Party(s)

M/S ASHWIN ANKHAD & ASSOCIATES

10 Jan 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
Miscellaneous Application No. MA/11/2
 
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TOYATA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PVT LTD
PLOT NO 1 BIDADI INSUSTRIAL Area
RAMNAGAR
KARNATAKA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SALAUDDIN THAKUR
B-803MEGHRAJ SHETTY MARG OPPOSITE BABY GARDEN NEAR YMCA SWIMMING POOL AGRIPADA MUMBAI
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 
PRESENT:Adv. Madhuri Sakpal,Advocate, Proxy for M/S ASHWIN ANKHAD & ASSOCIATES , Advocate for for the Appellant 1
 
Mr. Mohsin Khan constituted attorney for the Non-Applicant/Respondent
......for the Respondent
ORDER

Per :- Hon’ble Mr. P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member

 

          Adv. Madhuri Sakpal proxy advocate instructed by M/s. Ashwin Ankhad and Associates is present on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant.  She files letter of authority.  It is taken on the record.  Mr. Mohsin Khan, constituted attorney, is present on behalf of the Non-Applicant/Respondent.  He has produced on the record general power of attorney executed in his favour by the Non-Applicant/Respondent.  It is taken on the record.  Heard both of them on the application for condonation of delay.

 

[2]     There is a delay of 33 days in filing an appeal bearing No.3 of 2011 and hence, the Applicant/Appellant has filed this miscellaneous application bearing No.2 of 2011, seeking condonation of delay.  In the application for condonation of delay as well as in an affidavit sworn by Mr. Shrinivas P. Gotur, Manager – Legal & Company Secretary; on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant in support of the application for condonation of delay, just and sufficient causes have been mentioned in paragraphs (03), (04), (05), (06) and (07) thereof, as to why the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation and why the delay in filing appeal occurred.  Upon reading the same, we are satisfied that the delay has been properly explained.  Non-Applicant/Respondent’s constituted attorney has no objection if the delay is condoned.  Under the circumstances, we find that the delay is properly explained and further, to decide the appeal on merits, delay in filing appeal needs to be condoned, subject to payment of some costs.

 

 

 

 

          Hence, we pass the following order:-

 

ORDER

 

Miscellaneous Application No.2 of 2011 seeking condonation of delay in filing Appeal No.3 of 2011 is hereby allowed.  Consequently, the delay in filing appeal stands condoned subject to payment of costs of `1,000/- to be paid by the Applicant/Appellant to the Non-Applicant/Respondent within a period of 30 days from today (since the order is passed in presence of the parties) and failing which, without any further reference to the State Commission, the application for condonation of delay shall automatically stand dismissed

 

 

Pronounced and dictated on 10th January, 2012

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar]
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.