Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Taneja Developers And ... vs Ranjit Kumar on 18 October, 2022
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~108 (Appellate)
* 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 and Ms.
Snehal Kaila, Advs.
versus
RANJIT KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 18.10.2022 CM APPL. 45169/2022 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 1115/2022 & CM APPL. 45168/2022
3. The petitioner in the present case is aggrieved by the orders dated 18th May 2022 and 21st July 2022, passed by the Learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in FA No. 539/19 ( Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Ranjit Kumar) and RA 139/2022, preferred by the petitioner.
4. The impugned orders read as under:
"The present Appeal, which is alleged to have been filed on behalf of M/s Taneja Developers And Infrastructure Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 1115/2022 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:31.10.2022 13:00:40 Limited, does not bear the signatures either of the Appellant or the Authorised Representative or the Counsels. In the eye of law, this is not an Appeal which needs to be entertained. The Appeal, therefore, is dismissed."
"File perused. There is no error apparent on the face of the record for review of the impugned order. No ground for review has been made out. The Application has no merit. Same is dismissed."
5. The petitioner submits that it was unreasonable on the part of the learned NCDRC to have adopted such a view, when the matter was being taken up by the learned NCDRC for final hearing.
6. It is pointed out by Ms. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner, that FA No. 539/19 filed by the petitioner before the NCDRC was accompanied by a Board of Resolution, affidavit of by the authorised signatory of the petitioner and a Vakalatnama authorising the counsel to prosecute the matter on behalf of the petitioners.
7. In that view of the matter, the mere fact, inadvertently the signature of the petitioner and its counsel was not forthcoming in the body of the appeal could not constitute a justifiable ground to dismiss the appeal outright without adjudicating it. The defect, at the highest, submits Ms. Agnihotri was curable and the petitioner sought to have been granted an opportunity to cure the effect rather than dismissing the appeal at the final stage.
8. Ms. Agnihotri submits that an application had been moved for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 1115/2022 Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:31.10.2022 13:00:40 review of the said decision, but the said application has also been rejected in circulation without hearing.
9. In view of the aforesaid, issue notice returnable on 29th March 2023. Notice be served on the respondent by all modes including dasti as well as through the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent before the learned NCDRC.
10. Reply, if any, be filed within four weeks, with advance copy to learned counsel for the petitioner who may file rejoinder thereto, if any, before the next date of hearing.
11. Till the next date of hearing, there shall be a stay of execution proceedings remaining instituted constituent to the impugned orders passed by the NCDRC.
12. List on 29th March 2023.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J OCTOBER 18, 2022 ak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 1115/2022 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:31.10.2022 13:00:40