TOPLINE SHOES LIMITED Vs. CORPORATION BANK
LAWS(SC)-2002-7-73
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
July 08,2002
TOPLINE SHOES LIMITED
Appellant
VERSUS
CORPORATION BANK
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
NATIONAL SEWING THREAD CO LIMITED CHIDAMBARAM THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS VS. JAMES CHADWICK AND BROS LIMITED:JAMES CHADWICK AND BROS LIMITED [REFERRED]SANGRAN SINGH VS. ELECTION TRIBUNI KOTAH [REFERRED]
VASANLAL MAGANBHAI SANJANWALA THE PRATAP SPINNING WEAVING MANUFACTURING CO LIMITED VS. STATE OF BOMBAY NOW MAHARASHTRA :STATE OF BOMBAY NOW MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]
SHARIF UD DIN VS. ABDUL GANI LONE [REFERRED]
GANESH PRASAD SAH KESARI VS. LAKSHMI NARAYAN GUPTA [REFERRED]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. ESCORTS LIMITED [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
UMMED SINGH SOLANKI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-6-195] [REFERRED TO]KAILASH VS. NANHKU [LAWS(SC)-2005-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
ARJAN SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-12-164] [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANR VS. MAMPEE TIMBERS AND HARDWARES PVT LTD AND ANR [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-217] [REFERRED TO]
NIPA DHAR VS. NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2010-12-74] [REFERRED]
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL) MUMBAI VS. UNISON CLEARING PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-4-203] [REFERRED TO]
KEWAL KRISHAN AHUJA VS. JAGDEEP SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-101] [REFERRED TO]
C D GOPINATH VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2010-3-67] [REFERRED TO]
NANKU VS. KAILASH AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2004-8-377] [REFERRED TO]
KU. PREETI PATIDAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-6-199] [REFERRED TO]
DHANWANTI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2012-7-63] [REFERRED TO]
SHANMUGHASUNDARAM VS. DIRAVIA NADAR [LAWS(SC)-2005-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
ARMY WELFARE HOUSING ORGANIZATION VS. ARMY CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(NCD)-2016-1-45] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. MOSLEM MONDAL [LAWS(GAU)-2013-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO LTD VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-3-175] [REFERRED TO]
WIPONGBOU, S/O KHANGWIBOU VS. STATE OF MANIPUR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER (TA & HILLS), GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2017-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA DEVI VS. ABDHESH KUMAR SINHA [LAWS(PAT)-2005-4-33] [REFERRED TO]
MANTAR SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-138] [REFERRED TO]
LIYAKHATH ALI VS. H N LOHITHESHWAR [LAWS(KAR)-2004-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
SAGA DEPARTMENT STORES LIMITED VS. FALAK HOME DEVELOPERS PVT LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2008-10-132] [REFERRED TO]
Indradhanush T V Pvt LTD VS. National Film Development Corporation [LAWS(DLH)-2005-9-137] [REFERRED TO]
MODI SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS CO LTD VS. BHARAT KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-2005-3-108] [REFERRED TO]
MASROOR ALI VS. COURT OF INCHARGE DISTRICT JUDGE ADDI DIST JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2005-5-76] [REFERRED TO]
VIMAL ORGANICS LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-2-109] [REFERRED TO]
JINDAL SAW LTD VS. SAUBHAGYACHAND SHAMBULAL VORA [LAWS(GJH)-2005-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF KURNOOL VS. A PADMA REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2007-1-36] [REFERRED TO]
B KANTILAL VS. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DRUG CONTROL [LAWS(MAD)-2010-1-228] [REFERRED TO]
CHINTAMAN SUKHDEO KAKLIJ VS. SHIVAJI BHAUSAHEB GADHE [LAWS(BOM)-2004-8-145] [REFERRED TO]
JINDAL SAW LTD VS. SAUBHAGYACHAND SHAMBULAL VORA [LAWS(GJH)-2005-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
PAREVA BAI VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2006-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHDEV SAI VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT [LAWS(CHH)-2008-4-29] [REFERRED TO]
FERID ALLANI VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2008-2-123] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL VANSHKAR VS. STATE OF M P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2018-11-56] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD SHAHZAD KHAN VS. MOHAMMAD NASEEM [LAWS(ALL)-2005-7-276] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN HIGHWAYS MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED VS. MUKESH & ASSOCIATES [LAWS(DLH)-2021-3-120] [REFERRED TO]
VIPUL MUNJAL VS. SHAHZAD ANSARI [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2017-1-114] [REFERRED TO]
RAJPIPLA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD VS. MAGIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2013-10-28] [REFERRED TO]
DHANA SASTE VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-174] [REFERRED TO]
BAKUL RANI PATRA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2020-6-52] [REFERRED TO]
SIDDIVINAYAK SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL VS. NATIONAL COUNSEL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION [LAWS(BOM)-2004-4-139] [REFERRED TO]
J M OVERSEAS VS. VIJAY KUMAR MANGLA [LAWS(DLH)-2007-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
SHAH MOHAMMAD VS. INCHARGE DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
Indian Institute of Public Opinion Pvt LTD VS. Gopal Krishnan [LAWS(DLH)-2005-9-140] [REFRRED TO]
NOVARTIS AG VS. CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2014-10-94] [REFERRED TO]
GLOBAL AVIATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT UNDER AIRPORT AUTHORITY ACT, (55 OF 1994) [LAWS(BOM)-2018-2-345] [REFERRED TO]
KANISKA ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILAJA A SAWANT VS. SAYAJIRAO GANPATRAO PATIL [LAWS(BOM)-2003-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
KIRANDEVI BANSAL VS. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER [LAWS(GJH)-2009-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
KIRANDEVI BANSAL VS. D G M SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2009-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
PAUL SALDANHA, S/O DOMINIC SALDANHA VS. AJJU C S SINDOLLI [LAWS(BOM)-2018-4-128] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL BANSAL VS. MEETA BANSAL [LAWS(CAL)-2018-1-155] [REFERRED TO]
JAGMOHAN DALMIYA VS. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET [LAWS(CAL)-2007-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
ELAMKUNNAPUZHA PANCHAYATH VS. DINKAR [LAWS(KER)-2005-5-20] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR ARORA VS. ARUN KUMAR [LAWS(NCD)-2006-10-20] [REFERRED]
RAMESHWAR LAL VS. DAYANAND [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-5-30] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2015-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
ESHA DHIR VS. SPARSH DHIR [LAWS(DLH)-2021-11-212] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MIRZA HIMAYAT BAIG [LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-185] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHAJI ALLOYS STEEL PVT LTD VS. SICOM LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2008-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
SALEM ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2005-8-55] [REFERRED TO]
SUJAL DIPAK DOSHI VS. BHUPENDRA MULJIBHAI SHAH [LAWS(GJH)-2018-8-394] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR SAMANTA VS. WEST BENGAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD [LAWS(NGT)-2014-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. VS. BIHAR RAJYA BHUMI VIKAS BANK SAMITI [LAWS(SC)-2018-7-75] [REFERRED TO]
T R MUTHUKRISHNAN VS. S KADIRVELU [LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-328] [REFERRED TO]
VASAVI INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2017-12-68] [REFERRED TO]
MEGHALAYA INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MARGARETH KHYRIEM [LAWS(MEGH)-2019-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. KANAN KNITWEAR [LAWS(NCD)-2014-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
LV PRASAD EYE INSTITUTE AND ORS VS. PUSARLA SRINIVASA RAO & ANR [LAWS(NCD)-2016-2-200] [REFERRED]
ALI AKBAR JAFARI VS. RAJKUMAR VASUDEV WAGHNANI & ORS [LAWS(NCD)-2018-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. BALCHAND COTTON INDUSTRIES [LAWS(NCD)-2018-5-73] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD VS. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
DIAMOND EXPORTS VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2021-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
FAIRGROWTH INVESTMENTS LTD VS. CUSTODIAN [LAWS(SC)-2004-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
NOOR MOHAMMED VS. JETHANAND [LAWS(SC)-2013-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
BHASIN INFOTECH AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD VS. GRAND VENEZIA BUYERS ASSOCIATION (REG) [LAWS(SC)-2016-2-208] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VS. JASON DECKOR P LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2018-9-234] [REFERRED TO]
KAMESHWAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-1-136] [REFERRED TO]
NEMICHAND BURAD VS. JORAWARMAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
VANCHA VEERA REDDY VS. DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICER NALGONDA NALGONDA DISTRICT [LAWS(APH)-2010-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION VS. APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-370] [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI CELLULOSE PRODUCTS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2003-7-59] [REFFERED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Brijesh Kumar, J. -
(1.)Leave granted. Heard appellant in person and the learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.)This appeal has been preferred against the order dated April 9, 2001 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Reddressal Commission dismissing the revision filed by the appellant. The short point in controversy is, as to whether or not the State Consumer Disputes Reddressal Commission, could grant time to the respondent to file his reply, beyond a total period of 45 days, in view of S. 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act).
(3.)The appellant filed a complaint before the Gujarat State Consumer Redressal Commission, claiming compensation against the respondent, on account of alleged failure on the part of the respondent in advancing the loan to the appellant despite of furnishing the security for the same. The respondent received notice, issued by the Commission, on 22-2-2000. According to the said notice 4-4-2000 was the date fixed before the State Commission. The respondent appeared on 4-4-2000 and moved an application for adjournment of the case and grant of time to file reply. The case was adjourned for 4-5-2000. On the said date, namely, 4-5-2000, the respondent-Bank filed its reply. The appellant thereafter seems to have filed their rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent. On the next date, namely, 24-7-2000 the appellant moved an application before the State Commission saying that the reply filed by the respondent was beyond a period of 30 days initially admissible for filing reply and also beyond a further period of 15 days as could be extended for the purpose. Hence, it was prayed that the reply of the respondent may not be accepted on record and the rejoinder filed by the appellant may also be returned to it. According to the appellant, a total period of time for filing of reply could not exceed beyond 45 days, as per S. 13(2)(a) of the Act. The application was, however, rejected by the State Commission but a cost of Rs. 500/- was imposed upon the respondent for late filing of the reply.
(2.)This appeal has been preferred against the order dated April 9, 2001 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Reddressal Commission dismissing the revision filed by the appellant. The short point in controversy is, as to whether or not the State Consumer Disputes Reddressal Commission, could grant time to the respondent to file his reply, beyond a total period of 45 days, in view of S. 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act).
(3.)The appellant filed a complaint before the Gujarat State Consumer Redressal Commission, claiming compensation against the respondent, on account of alleged failure on the part of the respondent in advancing the loan to the appellant despite of furnishing the security for the same. The respondent received notice, issued by the Commission, on 22-2-2000. According to the said notice 4-4-2000 was the date fixed before the State Commission. The respondent appeared on 4-4-2000 and moved an application for adjournment of the case and grant of time to file reply. The case was adjourned for 4-5-2000. On the said date, namely, 4-5-2000, the respondent-Bank filed its reply. The appellant thereafter seems to have filed their rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent. On the next date, namely, 24-7-2000 the appellant moved an application before the State Commission saying that the reply filed by the respondent was beyond a period of 30 days initially admissible for filing reply and also beyond a further period of 15 days as could be extended for the purpose. Hence, it was prayed that the reply of the respondent may not be accepted on record and the rejoinder filed by the appellant may also be returned to it. According to the appellant, a total period of time for filing of reply could not exceed beyond 45 days, as per S. 13(2)(a) of the Act. The application was, however, rejected by the State Commission but a cost of Rs. 500/- was imposed upon the respondent for late filing of the reply.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.