NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2098/2013

MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VINAYKUMAR TRIMBAKRAO LANDE & 4 ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ANKIT SWARUP

28 Nov 2013

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 2098 OF 2013
 
(Against the Order dated 04/01/2013 in Appeal No. 446/2001 of the State Commission Maharastra)
WITH
IA/3456/2013,IA/3457/2013,IA/3458/2013,IA/3658/2013
1. MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS LTD.
B-4 OLD INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
JALNA
MAHARASTRA 431 203
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. VINAYKUMAR TRIMBAKRAO LANDE & 4 ORS.
R/O DHANEGAON TAL, BALAPUR,
AKOLA
MAHARASTRA
2. KISHORE SAHADEORAO LANDE,
R/O DHANEGAON TAL, BALAPUR,
AKOLA
MAHARASTRA
3. SHASHIKANT SANJAY LANDE,
R/O DHANEGAON TAL, BALAPUR,
AKOLA
MAHARASTRA
4. SHRIRAM SAKHARAM LANDE,
R/O DHANEGAON TAL, BALAPUR,
AKOLA
MAHARASTRA
5. M/S VIKAS KRISHISEVA KENDRA,
WADEGAON , TAL BALAPUR,
AKOLA
MAHARASTRA
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MR. ANKIT SWARUP
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 28 Nov 2013
ORDER

None appeared for the respondents even after service. Received written submissions from respondent nos. 1 to 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after institution of appeal in 2001, appeal was transferred to Nagpur Bench. On 05.10.2012, learned counsel for the appellant could not present himself before the bench and matter was adjourned to 04.01.2013. On 04.01.2013, learned counsel for the petitioner could not remain present before the State Commission due to non-communication of date by the local advocate and appeal was dismissed in default, but in the presence of learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as appeal was dismissed in default on account of non-communication of date by the local advocate, appeal may be restored and impugned order may be set aside. Respondent nos. 1 to 4 submitted written submissions and submitted that if Revision Petition is allowed, it may be remanded back with cost of Rs. 40,000/-. None appeared for respondent no. 5 and perusal of impugned order also reveals that respondent no. 5 was not present on the day of dismissal of appeal. Petitioner filed appeal in the year 2001 and it appears that it was taken in the year 2012 by the Nagpur Bench and appeal was dismissed in default in the presence of respondent nos. 1 to 4. As appeal has been dismissed in default on account of communication gap of information of next date, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal at its original number, subject to cost. Consequently, Revision Petition is allowed and impugned order dated 04.01.2013, passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. A/01/446, Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. Ltd. vs. Shri Vinaykumar Trimbakrao Lande & Ors. is set aside, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as cost to respondent no. 1 to 4 and appeal is restored at its original number. The State Commission is directed to decide the appeal immediately as it is 12 years old. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 03.02.2014.

 
......................J
K.S. CHAUDHARI
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. B.C. GUPTA
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.