IDBI Bank Ltd vs Shankar Sahay Tiwari

Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Presiding Member

Counsel for the petitioner is present.

None appears for the respondent.

The office report shows that the copy of the petition has been received by the respondent by hand.

This revision petition has been filed, under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 20.01.2023 in Appeal No. 272 of 2022 of the State Commission Delhi arising out of Order dated 21.09.2022 of the District Commission in Complaint no. 429 of 2021.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record including inter alia the Order by the District Commission on 21.09.2022, the impugned Order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the State Commission. and the delay condonation application moved before the State Commission.

It appears that the complaint filed in the District Commission was allowed.  Feeling aggrieved by the same the appeal was preferred before the State Commission but with some small delay. It appears that the delay condonation application that was moved before the State Commission did not find favour and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the point of limitation.

Submission of learned counsel is that in the District Commission the petitioner had not appeared and the complaint was allowed by the District Commission at the back of the petitioner.  As such the petitioner could not bring forth the merits of his case.  It has been further submitted that though the Order of the District Commission was passed on 21.09.2022 but the free certified copy of the Order was received by post during the holidays of Diwali on 27.10.2022.  Counsel has drawn the attention of the Bench to the free certified copy of the Order which was issued on 24.10.2022 as per the stamp affixed on the same.  Submission is that the appeal had been filed on 23.12.2022.  Submission is that on that reckoning the appeal was filed with a small delay which according to the State Commission  was of 12 days as has been mentioned in the impugned Order.  Attention has also been drawn to the delay condonation application as well as to the memo. of appeal.  It has been submitted that actually the petitioner had never received any notice from the District Commission which resulted in its non-appearance.  The petitioner had to collect necessary documents and copies and it took some time which resulted in the said delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission. Contention is that the sufficiency of cause to explain the delay has been adjudged by the State Commission too strictly and the approach adopted by it has been pedantic and not pragmatic.  It has been submitted that the refusal to condone the delay of 7 days (which according to the State Commission was of 12 days) has simply resulted in miscarriage of justice.  The circumstances involved in the matter at hand are such that the said delay cannot be said to be out of negligence, nor can it be said to be deliberate.  Submission is that there is nothing to indicate lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioner.  It has been submitted that the approach of adherence to strict proof has prejudicially affected the cause of justice.  It has been emphasized that the delay involved can by no means be said to be inordinate delay and it is in fact the delay of a short duration and which deserved condonation as the circumstances behind delayed filing ought to have been deemed sufficient.

The record of the case has been perused in the light of the submissions made by learned counsel without making any observations regarding inherent merits of the case, lest it may go to cause prejudice to either side, the Bench is of the view that the small delay involved in the matter ought to have been condoned by the State Commission in view of the grounds pleaded in the delay condonation application.  Thus the impugned Order passed  by the State Commission stands set aside.  The matter is remanded back with a request to the State Commission to restore the appeal on its original number and decide the same on the basis of its merits after affording adequate opportunity to both the sides in accordance with law deeming the delay to have been condoned.

Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 28.02.2024.

The principal onus of informing the respondent of this instant Order shall be of the petitioner. It shall do so within two weeks from today, without fail, and file proof thereof before the State Commission on or before the next date of hearing before it.

However, if for whatever reason, the respondent does not appear before the State Commission on the date of hearing, the State Commission shall issue notice for requiring their presence in order to proceed in accordance with law in the matter, as directed by this Commission. The State Commission in such a situation may also require the petitioner to take adequate steps in order to facilitate service on the respondent.

In case the respondent still feels to have objections to the instant Order, he may file appropriate application before the State Commission, submitting that he will raise his objection before this Commission (National Commission). In such contingency, the State Commission shall not proceed further with the appeal for a period of three months. In the said period of three months, the respondent may file appropriate application before this Commission to raise his objections.

If the respondent moves appropriate application in this Commission within the aforesaid period of three months, or before, further proceedings of the State Commission shall be subject to the orders that may be passed by this Commission on such application. If the respondent does not approach this Commission in the period of aforesaid three months (or before), the State Commission shall further proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in this petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioner as well to the State Commission within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.