Circuit Bench Aurangabad

StateCommission

FA/13/94

Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. Mumbai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Suvarnamala Sureshchandra Udgirkar - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.K A Kadam

17 Jul 2013

ORDER

MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI.
CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
 
First Appeal No. FA/13/94
(Arisen out of Order Dated 15/11/2011 in Case No. 127/2009 of District Latur )
 
1. Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. Mumbai
Through District Manager, Latur Tapadiya Market , Chainsukh Road
Latur
Maharashtra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Suvarnamala Sureshchandra Udgirkar
Moti Nagar,
Latur
Maharashtra
2. Chairman Through Pratap Vishvambharrao Mane
Hotel Vishvamitra, Ausa Road,
Latur
Maharashtra
3. Shri. Sartape Manager, Govardhan Sahakari Gruhnirman Society
Through Assistant Registar Cooperative Society Administrative Building District Office
Latur
Maharashtra
4. .
.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. S.M.SHEMBOLE PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MRS. UMA BORA MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MR. K.B.GAWALI MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
None
......for the Appellant
 
ORDER

Date   : 17.07.2013

 

Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

 

1.       None for appellant is present, its counsel Shri.K.A.Kadam is also absent. Respondents are not yet served with notice.  The record reflects that it was directed to issue notice to respondent on delay condonation application, but no notice appears to have been issued as appellant has not made necessary compliance.  The record further reflects that nobody for the appellant is present since 8.5.2013.  However on last date the matter was adjourned till today by way of last chance. But today also nobody for the appellant is present.

 

2.       The record further reflects that there was inordinate delay of more than 128 days for filing appeal. We have perused the application for condonation of delay and we find that there was more than 188 days delay.  Even applicant/appellant has disclosed in the application for condonation of delay as to when it received the copy of impugned judgment and order.  It is merely averred that approval of its head office was not received in time. But no reasons are given as to why approval was not given by its head office within the stipulated period of limitation or any reasonable period. Therefore we find no just and reasonable ground to condone such inordinate delay. 

 

3.       Thus on any count appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

 

 

Pronounced and dictated in

the open court on dt. 17.07.2013.

 

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. S.M.SHEMBOLE]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MRS. UMA BORA]
MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MR. K.B.GAWALI]
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.