w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

R.K. Sharma v/s Indian Overseas Bank & Others

Company & Directors' Information:- J R SHARMA OVERSEAS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PLC034628

Company & Directors' Information:- R.K. OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51211DL1986PTC023257

    Revision Petition No. 963 of 2015

    Decided On, 29 June 2015

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: V.P. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Pramod Kumar, Advocate.

Judgment Text

This Revision Petition by the Complainant calls in question the correctness and validity of order, dated 17.10.2014, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short the State Commission), in First Appeal No.442/2014. By the said order, the State Commission has stayed the Execution Proceedings, initiated by the Petitioner against the Respondent Bank for enforcement of order dated 25.2.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi, in Case No.CC/538/2012.

In short, the grievance of the Petitioner is that having declined to grant stay in Execution Proceedings at the time of entertaining the Appeal, preferred by the Respondent, on 1.9.2014, the State Commission did not have the jurisdiction to review the earlier order on the Respondent’s filing a fresh application praying for rectification of certain mistakes in the order, namely, (i) non recording of the presence of the counsel and (ii) not recording the order, stated to have been orally pronounced, staying the Execution Proceedings.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Revision Petition is without any substance. Admittedly, along with the Appeal, an application had been filed by the Respondent Bank, praying for stay of Execution Proceedings but no order on the Stay Application had been passed by the State Commission on 1.9.2014. The plea of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that since the interim stay, as prayed for in the application had not been granted, the application filed by the Respondent was deemed to have been rejected and therefore, a fresh application, styled as Review Application, could not be entertained by the State Commission.

Having perused the order, dated 1.9.2014, we find that on that date, while admitting the Appeal, by condoning the delay in filing it, the State Commission had only granted time to the Complainant to file reply by 10.11.2014. No order on stay application was made. However, in the meanwhile, the afore-stated Review Application came to be filed on behalf of the Respondent, which was taken up for consideration on 17.9.2014 and notice was directed to be issued to the Respondent for 17.10.2014. On 17.10.2014, while recording the statement of counsel for the Appellant Bank that the notice had been sent to the counsel for the Complainant through courier and due intimation about the date of hearing had been conveyed to the counsel on phone, the State Commission passed interim order staying the operation of the order passed by the District Forum till the next date. The case was directed to be re-notified on 10.11.2014. In view of the afore-noted factual scenario, we are of the view that no specific order having been passed by the State Commission on the Stay Application, the interim order passed on 17.10.2014 cannot be construed as an order in review.

As observed above, there is no merit in this Revision Petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.

It is pointed out by the le

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

arned counsel for the parties that the Appeal is now coming up for final disposal before the State Commission on 15.7.2015. We are confident that having regard to the short controversy involved, the State Commission shall dispose of the Appeal expeditiously. The Revision Petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.