Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.26 seconds)Section 24A in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
State Bank Of India vs M/S. B.S. Agricultural Industries(I) on 20 March, 2009
19. The next question, that arises for
consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission can decide the appeal, on
merits, especially, when it has come to the conclusion, that there is no
sufficient cause, for condonation of delay of 306 days, as per the
applicant/appellant (as per the office report 276 days), in filing the same (appeal). The answer to this question, is in the
negative, as provided by the Apex Court in State Bank of
India Vs B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC). The
question before the Apex Court, was with regard to the condonation of delay, in
filing the complaint, in the first instance, beyond the period of two years, as
envisaged by Section 24A of the Act. The Apex Court was pleased to observe as
under ;
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 12 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Smt. Tara Wanti vs State Of Haryana Through The Collector, ... on 5 July, 1994
10.
First
coming to the application, for condonation of delay, it may be stated here,
that the same is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded
hereinafter. The question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether,
there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 306 days, as per the
applicant/appellant (as per the office report 276 days), in filing the appeal,
under Section 15 of the Act. It was held in Smt.Tara Wanti Vs
State of Haryana through the Collector, Kurukshetra AIR 1995 Punjab &
Haryana 32, a case decided by a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, that sufficient cause, within the meaning of
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, must be a cause, which is beyond the control
of the party, invoking the aid of the Section, and the test to be applied,
would be to see, as to whether, it was a bona-fide cause, in as much as,
nothing could be considered to be bonafide, which is not done, with due care
and attention. In New
Bank of India Vs. M/s
Marvels ( India): 93 (2001)
DLT 558, Delhi
High Court, it was held as
under:-