AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. The State Commission passed the order dated 19.3.2015, which is reproduced as under: - "Ms. Shabina Ali, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sanjay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.
In compliance with the directions made in order dated 24.02.2015, counsel for respondent has placed on record the statement of account appellant depicting the principal amount with the interest accrued thereon.
Ms. Shabina Ali, counsel for the appellant submits that she is satisfied with the statement given by the bank and is willing to take the amount as shown in the statement. Shri Sanjay Shrivastava, counsel for the respondent submits that the payment will be made within 15 days.
In view of the settlement between the parties before this Commission, this appeal is disposed off"
COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that Shri Sanjay Shrivastava was not authorized by the bank. As a matter of fact, they had engaged Shri Sanjay Bajpayee, Advocate. Shri Sanjay Shrivastava was a proxy counsel, but there is no such inkling on the record. It was argued that no power of attorney was given by the bank and there was tampering of the documents in the receipt. He, however, admits that tampering was not done by Shri Sanjay Srivastava. All these arguments are bereft of merits. The Apex Court in the case of Neeru Chawla Vs. Indu Chopra, Civil Appeal No. 12962/2014 decided on 25.08.2014, upheld the judgment of three members Bench of this Commission in First Appeal No. 387 of 2013, decided on 01.08.2013. The Apex Court approved that the admission made by the counsel is binding. This Commission was pleased to hold: - "State Commission has passed the order based on the concession made by the counsel Mr. Puneet Singh. Counsel appearing for the appellant today in court very fairly admits that Puneet Singh was engaged by the appellant. Since Puneet Singh was engaged as counsel for the appellant, he had a right to make a statement and we have no doubt that he had made such concession after taking instructions. Since order has been passed by the State Commission on concession made by the counsel for the appellant, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed."
LIKEWISE , in other cases, the Advocate wanted to recall their statement(s) regarding withdrawal of the case. This Commission in various cases did not accept their prayer and the Hon''ble Apex Court upheld those orders, viz. DCM Ltd. Versus O.P. Saini & Ors., in FA 744 OF 2006, by the National Commission decided on 19.10.2012, and Satyanarayan Shrikrishna Kalantri Versus Assistant Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, in RP No. 3376 OF 2011, by the National Commission decided on 05.07.2013.
THE Revision Petition is without merit. The same is, therefore, dismissed.