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


Skipper Tower Private Limited v/s Skipper Bhawan Flat Buyers' Assn.

    Civil Appeal No. 7533 of 1995
    Decided On, 17 July 2001
    At, Supreme Court of India
    By, HON'BLE JUSTICE G. B. PATTANAIK AND HON'BLE JUSTICE U. C. BANERJEE
   


Judgment Text
This appeal is directed against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 13-1-1995 passed in Original Petition No. 16 of 1991. When this appeal was called, Ms. Kiran Suri, Advocate appearing for the appellant made a prayer that she has been engaged in this case only yesterday and "no-objection certificate" has been given by the previous Advocate-on-Record and as such she is not in a position to proceed with the matter and the matter may be adjourned. The respondent Skipper Bhawan Flat Buyers' Association is personally present through Col. Jaswant Singh and vehemently objects to any adjournment being given. Apart from the respondent's objection, we also find that there is an earlier judicial order rejecting the application for discharge of the Advocate-on-Record. Be that as it may, if a counsel accepts the engagement knowing full well that the matter is already on board, then the counsel must be prepared to proceed with the matter and is not entitled to take a plea that he or she is not in a position to proceed with the matter inasmuch as he or she has been engaged recently.


We have ourselves scrutinized the impugned order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Having examined the said order and taking into account the facts of the case as well as the grounds taken in the appeal memo, we see no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission requiring our interference in the matter. The appellant, to say the least, does not deserve any sympathy or any equitable consideration in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, in our view, neither i

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
n law nor on any equitable consideration, the impugned order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission requires interference by this Court. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
O R