Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shrachi Infrustructure Finance Ltd vs Susanta Dutta Biswas on 22 June, 2011
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1 Sl/ 22.6.11 C.O. 3461 of 2009 94 ac Shrachi Infrustructure Finance Ltd.
-vs-
Susanta Dutta Biswas Mr. Mainak Bose Mr. Paritosh Sinha Mr. Amitava Mitra Ms. Dolon Dasgupta ... For Petitioner In spite of service no one appears on behalf of the opposite party. The matter is taken up ex parte.
This revisional application is directed against Order No. 1 dated 27th July 2009 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in F.A. No. 242 of 2009 by which an application for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal was dismissed.
The opposite party filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barasat complaining the act of the petitioner in taking forcible possession of the vehicle in question and also claiming compensation against alleged acts and misdeeds of the petitioner.
The petitioner, before taking steps in furtherance of the said proceeding, filed applications under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation 2 Act, 1996. It is a specific case of the petitioner that there exists an arbitration clause and in case of any dispute, in relation to the subject matter, the District Consumer C.O. 3461 of 2009 Disputes Redressal Forum should refer the matter to arbitration. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, without adverting to the aforesaid applications filed under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, proceeded to decide the main application.
Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal belatedly accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal. The application for condonation of delay is rejected by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on the ground that this is a glaring case of laches on the part of the petitioner and there is no explanation about the delay in preferring the appeal.
It is the settled law that the approach of the Court should be liberal in considering an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Meritorious claims should not be thrown out of the Court on the touchstone of delay. This Court finds that this is not a case of such nature where an application for delay is liable to be rejected. I find that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to ventilate its grievance 3 in an appeal which should be disposed of on merit. It is settled law that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on the Court to entertain an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
This Court feels that the application for condonation of delay deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed, subject to payment of cost C.O. 3461 of 2009 assessed at 300 GMs to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite party within one month from date.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal is requested to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible on merit in accordance with law.
The revisional application is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy be supplied to the parties, if applied for, on priority basis.
(Harish Tandon, J.)