Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Bharathiar University vs Hri T. S. Ahuja on 19 June, 2012

  
 
 
 
 
 
 UNDER  CERTIFICATE  OF  POSTING
  
 
 
 







 



 
   
   
   


   
     
     
     

BEFORE THE
    HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 
    
   
    
     
     

COMMISSION,  MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
    
   
  
  
   

 
  
 
  
   
   

 
  
 
  
   
   
     
     
     
       
       
       

Miscellaneous
      Application No. MA/10/591 a/w A/10/1083
      
     
    
     

 
    
   
    
     
     

 
    
   
    
     
     
       
       
       
         
         
         

1.

BHARATHIAR UNIVERSITY ( SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION) COIMBATURE - 641 046.

KARNATAKA ...........Appellant(s) Versus

1. SHRI T. S. AHUJA VR (MAMA) MALGI FOUNDATION TRUST, 6 SAIKRIPA APT 2ND FLOOR ULHASNAGAR, THANE - 421

001. MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)   BEFORE:

   
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER   Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member   PRESENT: None present.
   
O R D E R   Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar Honble Presiding Judicial Member:
 
None is present for the Appellant till 12.17 p.m. There are some lacunae in this appeal. We asked Appellant to explain us about these lacunae. On last occasion Ms.Aditi Shirke, appeared for the Appellant with authority letter through Mr.J.B. Nair. Today none is present for the Appellant. There is delay of 310 days in filing the appeal. Delay is not properly explained by giving just and sufficient cause either in application or in affidavit. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay. In the condonation of delay application in prayer clause the condonation of delay of blank days has been sought. Very callously this condonation of delay application has been drafted and delay of 310 days is not properly explained. Therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay.
Hence, we pass the following order:
 
O R D E R      
(i)               Misc.Application No.591/2010 filed for condonation of delay stands rejected.
   
(ii)               Consequently Appeal No.1083/2010 does not survive for consideration.
 
(iii)               Inform the parties accordingly.
 

Pronounced on 19th June, 2012.

[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER   [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member ep