TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the writ petition challenging the revisional order of the State Consumer Commission was maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the refusal to condone delay in filing the written statement warranted interference.
Issue (i): whether the writ petition challenging the revisional order of the State Consumer Commission was maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The petition arose from a revisional order of a consumer tribunal. The Court noted that proceedings under Article 227 involve supervisory jurisdiction and that a writ court does not sit as an appellate forum to reappreciate matters unless the impugned order is jurisdictionally flawed, perverse, or contrary to natural justice. The Court also indicated that the proper procedural course would ordinarily be to approach the Court by the appropriate miscellaneous petition rather than by the composite writ form adopted here.
Conclusion: The objection to the chosen mode of approach did not displace the Court's decision to examine the matter, and no jurisdictional ground for interference was made out.
Issue (ii): whether the refusal to condone delay in filing the written statement warranted interference.
Analysis: Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 permits the opposite party to file its version within thirty days, extendable by not more than fifteen days. The record showed service of the complaint with complete documents, and the written statement was filed beyond the permissible period. The Court found no material to dislodge the concurrent factual finding that the plea of incomplete service was not bona fide. In writ jurisdiction, the Court would not substitute its own view where the forum below had acted on relevant material and the decision was neither arbitrary nor perverse.
Conclusion: The refusal to condone delay was upheld and no interference was called for.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the consumer fora's orders failed, and the impugned refusal to accept the written statement beyond limitation remained undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: In writ supervision over consumer tribunal orders, interference is warranted only when the impugned decision is jurisdictionally defective, perverse, or violative of natural justice, and the statutory period for filing a written statement under the Consumer Protection Act cannot be enlarged beyond the prescribed limit on an unsubstantiated plea of incomplete service.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
