Bombay High Court
Plastro Plasson Industries Ltd, ... vs Nitin Tukaram Bhosale on 8 June, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
mub 1 18 wp 732.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 732 OF 2015
Plastro Plasson Industries Ltd.
Presently known as Finolex Plasson
Industries Ltd., Plot No. 399, URSE,
Tq. Maval, Dist. Pune, through its
Authorized Executive Pushkar Vasant
Khandekar, Age: 64 years,
Occ. Service, R/o as above. ... Petitioner
Vs.
Nitin Tukaram Bhosale,
Age: 50 years, Occ. Agril.
R/o Samudravani,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. ... Respondent
----
Mr. M.D. Joshi, h/f M.T. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondent.
----
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 08-06-2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
with consent of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to various
factual aspects involved and particularly to those on the date of the
dismissal of appeal before the Maharashtra State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission in default. The concerned advocate
had been hospitalised and had been advised bed rest and as such
::: Uploaded on - 16/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:43:05 :::
mub 2 18 wp 732.15.odt
could not move and the proxy advocate could not advance
arguments as he had not been instructed in respect of the merits of
the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to a
couple of orders, one passed in Writ Petition bearing no. 6384 of
2012 and other in Writ Petition No. 397 of 2013 whereunder
learned counsel points out that similar impugned orders have been
dealt with and set aside. The learned counsel for the respondent
vehemently opposes the petition and requests no indulgence be
given to the petitioner. However, he is not in a position to dispute
veracity of the contentions with respect to factual aspects
particularly, inability of the advocate to attend state commission on
the date of dismissal of complaint. The rationale as is reflected in
the orders relied on in writ petitions nos. 6384/2012 and 397/2013
apply on all fours to the facts of this case. In view of the same, I
consider to be expedient to follow the suit of decisions relied on
behalf of the petitioners. In view of the same, the following order:
ORDER
i) The impugned order dated 26-11-2014 is quashed
and set aside.
ii) First appeal No. 456/2010 is restored to its
original position on the condition that the
mub 3 18 wp 732.15.odt
petitioner pays cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the
respondent within a period of six weeks from
today.
iii) The cost may be directly paid to the respondent or
be deposited in the office of the Maharashtra State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit
Bench at Aurangabad. In case it is deposited in
the office of Commission as directed above the
respondent is entitled to withdraw the same. The
parties shall appear before the state commission
on 25-07-2016.
4. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms. Writ Petition
disposed of.
(SUNIL P. DESHMUKH)
JUDGE
