Maharashtra

StateCommission

MA/11/490

M/S OM CONSTRUCTION - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT ELA BIPIN SHETH - Opp.Party(s)

NAVIN DWIVEDI

06 Jul 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
Miscellaneous Application No. MA/11/490
 
1. M/S OM CONSTRUCTION
THROUGH ITS PARTNER 4 TH FLOOR 402 SHANTI CHS LTD CHAR BUNGLOW OPP MTNL MHADA VARSOVA ANDHERI WEST MUMBAI
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
2. SHRI DHARMSHI R PATEL
4 TH FLOOR 402 SHANTI CHS LTD CHAR BUNGLOW OPP MTNL MHADA VARSOVA ANDHERI WEST MUMBAI
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SMT ELA BIPIN SHETH
FLAT NO 2 KOYANA SMRUTI NEAR JOSHI HIGH SCHOOL SARASWAT COLONY DOMBIVALI EAST MUMBAI 421201
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
2. SHRI TUSHAR THAKKAR
PARTNER OF M/S OM CONSTRUCTION R/AT FLAT NO C-433 BLDG ODHAV SRUSTI END OF FOUR ROAD PRAMUKH SWAMI NAGAR KUTCH BHUJ (GUJRAT)
GUJRAT
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 
PRESENT:
Mr.Dharamsi R. Patel, Partner
......for the Appellant
 
Mr.Bipin Gunwantrai Sheth, A/R
......for the Respondent
ORDER

ORDER :- (Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)

 

 

(1)               Mr.Dharamsi R. Patel, partner of the Applicant/Appellant is present.  One Bipin Gunwantrai Sheth, husband of non-applicant/respondent, Smt.Ila Bipin Sheth is present.  On 12/03/2012 itself he had informed that his wife, Ila Bipin Sheth died on 06/12/2011.  Since then, applicant/appellant failed to take steps to bring her legal heirs on record.  As such, proceedings as against non-applicant/respondent No.1, Ila Bipin Sheth stood abated. 

 

(2)               This is an application for condonation of delay to get the delay condoned of 1475 days in filing the appeal.  Since, this application against the non-applicant/respondent No.1, Ila Bipin Sheth stood abated, application aginst other non-applicant/respondent No.2, Tushar Thakkar, partner of the applicant/appellant has to be considered.  There is a statement made in the application that they were not served with the notice of proceedings.  Per se, the statement cannot be accepted for two reasons, viz., the statement made in the application and observations made by the District Forum about service of the notice on applicant/appellant and that they preferred to remain absent in spite of such service and the second instance, it is revealed from the record that copy of the impugned order dated 26/09/2006 was sent by post [it is the copy which is supplied free of cost by the forum] on 18/10/2006 as per the outward endorsement appearing on the copy itself.  This copy is produced by the applicant/appellant himself.  They came with no explanation about receipt of such copy.  Hence, we find the delay is not at all explained satisfactorily.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order.

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

(1)     Application for condonation of delay bearing No.MA/11/490 stands     dismissed. 

(2)     No order as to costs.

(3)     Since the application for condonation of delay bearing No.MA/11/490 stood dismissed, the appeal No.A/11/803 does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly.

 

Pronounced on 6th July, 2012.

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
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.