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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
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