AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
RA/377/2018 has been filed by the Opposite Party against the order passed by this Commission dated 10.10.2018 in CC/984/2018, whereby the right of the Opposite Party to file the written statement was closed.
This Commission, vide order dated 04.03.2020, issued notice of the review application to the non-applicants/Complainants for arguments on the review application. On 11.05.2022, after hearing the Learned Counsel for the Parties, this Commission reserved orders.
Learned Counsel for the applicant/Opposite Party submitted that on 10.10.2018, the Opposite Party informed this Commission that the written statement could not be filed in time as the Chief Executive Officer of the Opposite Party was unwell and the same would be filed within a week. The right of the Opposite Party to file the written statement was, however, closed without even recording the submissions of the Opposite Party. Learned Counsel relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhasin Infotech & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Grand Venezia Buyers Association dated 11.02.2016 wherein it was held that the proper course is to permit the appellant to file its response.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the non-applicant/Complainant submitted that the averment of the Opposite Party regarding illness of the Chief Executive Officer is false and concocted. The Opposite Party did not file any medical certificate regarding illness of the CEO. The Opposite Party even did not file an application for condonation of delay in filing the reply nor was the copy of the reply served upon the Complainants. He submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757 dated 04.03.2020 , this Commission does not have the power to condone the delay in filing the written statement.
The only issue in the review application is whether the order dated 10.10.2018 passed by this Commission closing the right of the Opposite Party to file the written statement is justified. The judgment relied by the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party in Bhasin Infotech (supra) relates back to 2016 and is not applicable in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hilli Multipurpose (supra) of 4 th March, 2020. This Commission while closing the right of the Opposite Party to file the written statement observed as follows: -
“Written statement was not filed within the statutory period, hence their right to file the written statement stands closed. Affidavit evidence be filed within eight weeks.
Learned counsel for the opposite party makes an oral submission that the OP is unwell, the same is rejected.”
The allegation of the Opposite Party that this Commission closed their right to file the written statement without recording the submission of the Opposite Party is not correct and rejected.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hilli Multipurpose (supra), we find that the impugned order dated 10.10.2018 is justified and does not warrant interference in the review jurisdiction. Review application is accordingly dismissed.
List the matter in the category of directions on 4 th July, 2022 after notice to the Parties and their Counsel.