Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Taneja Developers And ... vs Ranjit Kumar on 13 December, 2023
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 1115/2022 & CM APPL. 45168/2022
M/S TANEJA DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Kanika Agnihotri,
Mr.Gandharv Garg &
Mr.Sachin Sharma, Advs.
versus
RANJIT KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Vipin Choudhary &
Ms.Simran Kumari, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ORDER
% 13.12.2023
1. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 18.05.2020 passed by the learned National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (in short, 'NCDRC') in FA No. 539/2019, titled M/s Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Ranjit Kumar, whereby the learned NCDRC has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that the appeal does not bear the signatures of either the appellant, that is, the petitioner herein, or its Authorized Representative or the counsel representing the appellant before the learned NCDRC.
2. The petitioner further challenges the Order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the learned NCDRC, dismissing the application seeking review of the order dated 18.05.2022, observing that no ground for review was made out.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2023 at 22:52:43
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned NCDRC has failed to appreciate that the appeal was duly accompanied with an attested affidavit of the Authorized Representative of the petitioner herein, along with the Board Resolution authorizing him to act on behalf of the petitioner. The appeal was also accompanied with the vakalatnama of the counsel under whose name the same had been filed. She submits that even otherwise, the defect was curable in nature and the learned NCDRC should have granted an opportunity to the petitioner herein to cure the said defect rather than dismissing the same on this account.
4. The learned for the respondent submits that she has no objection to the present petition being allowed, however, submits that the petitioner should be subjected to costs.
5. I have considered the submissions made.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned NCDRC was duly accompanied with the attested affidavit by the Authorized Representative of the petitioner company. It was also accompanied with a vakalatnama of the petitioner's counsel. The defect that the appeal itself does not bear the signature of the counsel or the Authorized Representative of the petitioner, was clearly a curable defect and the learned NCDRC has erred in dismissing the appeal without granting liberty to the petitioner herein to cure this defect.
7. In view thereof, the present petition is allowed. The orders dated 18.05.2022 and 21.07.2022 passed by the learned NCDRC are set aside. The appeal filed by the petitioner, being FA No. 539/2019, This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2023 at 22:52:43 titled M/s Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Ranjit Kumar, is restored back to its original number before the learned NCDRC. The same shall be considered by the learned NCDRC on its own merit.
8. I do not find this to be a case fit enough to award costs against the petitioner. Therefore, there shall be no order as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J DECEMBER 13, 2023/rv/RP Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2023 at 22:52:44