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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more