Skip to main content

Senior lawyer can't be excused for late appeal in own case

Plea, which came after 200 days, was rejected by state consumer commission.

Not realising the importance of filing appeals in time is going to cost a senior lawyer loss of face as despite being one of the most reputed practising lawyers in legal circles, his appeal was rejected for a mere technical reason - not adhering to deadlines set by the consumer forum.

Stating that a practising lawyer could not be allowed condonation of delay
(forgiveness for unintentional delay) in filing his appeal that took 200 days, Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has rejected the appeal of senior high court lawyer Ashok Saraogi.

In 2007, Mumbai-based lawyer Saraogi hired a lawyer and filed consumer
case before Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum complaining against ICICI Bank, Kapadia Brothers and Ghel Automobiles Pvt Ltd for allegedly illegally using his credit card to buying petroleum products.

“I was in Jaipur with my wife for some rituals when my credit card was used to make illegal transactions. Not only did I file a criminal case but also move the consumer forum,” said Saraogi.

The forum in November 2011 rejected Saraogi’s plaint stating there was no deficiency in service from the bank as tallying signatures was the merchant’s responsibility. Since Saraogi could not prove that he was a direct consumer of the other two parties, the forum said it had no jurisdiction to decide the case.

The appeal for a second hearing before the state consumer redressal forum
was filed after 200 days and so the state body rejected the appeal.

The commission observed that despite being an advocate, Saraogi employed services of another advocate to prepare the appeal.

“The appeal was stated to be ready on January 17, 2012, but was filed on
June 26, 2012. No reasons are disclosed for condonation of delay except the personal difficulty of the advocate Jagtap who filed the appeal. It was orally learned that Saraogi’s advocate got married sometime in January 2012 but that cannot be a ground for filing an appeal so late.”

Stating that marriage of the advocate employed by complainant, who is
himself an advocate, isn’t a reason good enough for the delay, the appeal
was rejected.

"They have rejected the plaint on technical grounds. I will appeal in the
National Consumer Greviance Redressal Forum," said Saraogi.

Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/pune/report-senior-lawyer-can-t-be-excused-for-late-appeal-in-own-case-1939815

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more