Bombay High Court
L And T Finance Ltd., Akola vs Atul S/O Mahadeorao Bobde on 10 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wp5722.15.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.5722 OF 2015
PETITIONERS: 1. L & T Finance Ltd., Yamuna Tarang
Complex, Murtizapur Road, Opp.
Vidarbh Hospital, Near Ramlata
Business Center, Akola.
2. L & T Finance Ltd., Plot No.316, M.
G. House, 4th Floor, Ravindranath
Tagor Road, Civil line, Nagpur - 400
010.
3. Corporate Office, L & T Finance Ltd.,
3 B.B. Laxmi Tower, C-25, G-Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East)
ig Mumbai 400 051.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT: Atul S/o Mahadeorao Bobde, Aged 37
years, occ: Business, R/o Kurum, Tq.
Akola, District Akola.
Shri Mohd. Qubbawala, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri S. Khedkar, Advocate for respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: 10
th JUNE, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned
Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners who were the appellants in First
Appeal No. A/14/298 are aggrieved by the order dated 29-4-2015
passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
wp5722.15.odt 2/3
Nagpur dismissing the appeal in default.
3. It is submitted by Shri Mohd. Qubbawala, the learned
Counsel for the petitioners that the Counsel for the petitioners who
was engaged for prosecuting the appeal could not remain present
resulting in dismissal of the said appeal in default. He submitted
that in para 9 of the writ petition, the reasons have been stated
which have led to dismissal of the appeal in default. He relied
upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of Aurangabad Bench
of this Court in Writ Petition No.10144/2013 (Arun S/o Sudamrao
Modale Vs. Sangmeshwar Tractor and another) decided on 2nd April,
2014 and submitted that this Court may exercise discretion by
restoring the proceedings.
4.. Shri S. Khedkar, the learned Counsel for the
respondent opposed the writ petition. According to him, the
petitioners were consistently absent before the State Commission
and therefore the dismissal of the appeal in default was justified.
5. Having perused the documents on record it can be
seen that the Counsel for petitioners befoe the State Commission
remained continuously absent. Having gone through the judgment
relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, I am
inclined to restore the proceedings before the State Commission,
however subject to imposition of costs. The order dated 29-4-2015
wp5722.15.odt 3/3
passed in the appeal preferred by the petitioners is set aside. The
appeal is restored for being decided on merits. This is subject to
costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent
before the State Commission as condition precedent for restoration
of the appeal. If the costs are so paid and the appeal is restored,
the appeal memo alongwith the documents shall be supplied to the
learned Counsel for the respondent before the State Commission.
The proceedings in the said appeal are expedited and same shall
be decided within a period of three months from the date the
proceedings are restored. The petitioners shall appear before the
State Commission on 20-6-2016.
6. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE
//MULEY//
