Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Yashwant Nagari Sahakari ... vs Vijay Bhausaheb Shinde And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 58 Bom

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 58 Bom
Judgement Date : 25 February, 2016

Bombay High Court
Yashwant Nagari Sahakari ... vs Vijay Bhausaheb Shinde And ... on 25 February, 2016
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
                                                                            wp6677.14
                                           -1-




                                                                            
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                    
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 6677 OF 2014



     1.       Yashwant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha




                                                   
              Maryadit, Office at Shrirampur
              Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar
              Through its Assistant Manager
              Sharad s/o Haribhau Parbhale
              Age 33 years, Occ. Service




                                         
     2.       The Accountant,
              Yashwant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha
              Maryadit, Branch at Jijamata Chowk,
              Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur,
              District Ahmednagar
                            
     3.       The Manager,
              Yashwant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha
              Maryadit, Branch at Jijamata Chowk,
              Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur,
      


              District Ahmednagar
   



     4.       The Chairman,
              Yashwant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha
              Maryadit, Branch at Kolhar
              Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar            ...Petitioners





                      versus

     1.       Vijay Bhausaheb Shinde,
              Age 43 years, Occ. Business,
              R/o. Loni (Kh), Tq. Rahata





              District Ahmednagar

     2.       Sow. Sunita w/o Vijay Shinde
              Age 38 years, Occ. Household
              R/o. Loni (Kd), Tq. Rahata
              District Ahmednagar                            ...Respondents

                                            ...
                     Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Kute Rajendra L.
                    Advocate for Respondents 1 and 2: Mr. R.R. Karpe
                                           .....




    ::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2016                    ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:40:35 :::
                                                                               wp6677.14
                                          -2-

                                                CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.




                                                                              
                                                DATED : 25th FEBRUARY, 2016

     ORAL JUDGMENT:-




                                                      
     1.       Rule.      Rule returnable forthwith.     By consent of learned




                                                     
     counsel for the parties, heard finally at admission stage.



     2.       The respondents-original complainants had filed complaint No.




                                        
     220 of 2011 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,
                             
     at Ahmednagar for recovery of amount deposited by them in Lakhpati
                            
     deposit scheme in the petitioner - Patsanstha. The District Consumer

     Dispute Redressal Forum by order dated 25.9.2013 allowed the said

     complaint, holding that the respondents are entitled to receive the
      


     amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees one lac) each, as there is
   



     deficiency in service.         Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners

     preferred First Appeal No. 348 of 2013 before the State Consumer





     Dispute Redressal Commission, Mumbai,                Bench at Aurangabad.

     The petitioners had deposited entire amount before the State





     Commission.             However, the Presiding Member of the State

     Commission has dismissed the said appeal in default. Hence, this

     writ petition.



     3.       Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the counsel

     engaged by the petitioners could not attend the matter on the dates



    ::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2016                      ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:40:35 :::
                                                                                  wp6677.14
                                              -3-

     given due to his personal difficulty. Learned counsel further submits




                                                                                 
     that on the date of passing of impugned order, the petitioners'




                                                         
     representative appeared before the Commission little late.




                                                        
     4.       Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

     petitioners were not diligent in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal

     came to be adjourned on three dates and on all three dates, neither




                                             
     the appellants nor their counsel were present.
                              ig                                      Learned counsel

     submits that the Presiding Member of State Commission, therefore,
                            
     has rightly dismissed the appeal in default.



     5.       It appears that the appeal has not been decided on merits and
      


     same is dismissed in default. The petitioners complied the order
   



     passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum by

     depositing the amount before the State Commission. In view of this,





     I am inclined to allow this writ petition by imposing certain costs.

     Hence, the following order:-





                                          ORDER

I. The impugned order dated 19.6.2014, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad in appeal No. 348 of 2014, is hereby quashed and set aside subject to condition of payment of Rs.5000/-

wp6677.14

(Rupees Five thousand only) towards the costs to be

deposited by the petitioners before the State Commission, within two weeks from today.

II. On deposit of said costs amount, the State Commission shall hear the appeal on merits. The respondents are at

liberty to withdraw the costs amount of Rs.5000/-.

III. Rule made absolute in the above terms. Writ petition is

disposed of. No costs.

( V. K. JADHAV, J.)

rlj/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter