|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
WRITTEN OBJECTION OF
THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1, & 2, Shri Abhijit Roy and Others, agaist the petition of
Condonation of delay of the appellant
The
humble petition of written objection against the petition of condonation of
delay as filed by the appellant in the present memo of appeal, moved on behalf
of the respondent nos. 1, and 2, Shri Abhijit Roy and Smt. Kalpana Roy, most
respectfully;
Sheweth as under :
1.
That the impugned Order and Judgement dated 15/09/2016,
in CC/13 /2013 has been passed by the Learned Lower Forum bellow at Baruipur,
South 24 Parganas, which has been placed under challenged by the Appellant
before the Hon’ble State Commission ,West Bengal, in the present memo of
appeal.
2.
That the respondent
number 1 and 2 are in agreement and under the acceptance of the said impugned
Order and Judgement dated 15/09/2016 in CC /13 /2013, which has been passed by
the Learned Lower Forum bellow at Baruipur, South 24 Parganas, and therefore
the respondents do not feel rather find any cause for intervention into the
said impugned Order and Judgement dated 15/09/2016 in CC /13 /2013, which has
been passed by the Learned Lower Forum bellow at Baruipur , South 24 Parganas.
3.
That the present
Appeal has been filed on 21/12/2016 and therefore the total period of delay as
of 97 days has been occurred wherein the deduction of 30 days as of statutory
period for preferring such an Appeal under section 15 of consumer protection
Act 1986, the total period of delay as ascertained by as of 67 days so far.
4.
That with respect to
the paragraph number 2 of the petition of condonation of delay as placed by the
Appellant herein which contained as “The Learned Advocate on record who to know
about the said Order on 05/10/2016 but it has not been contained that how come
and in which manner all of a sudden on 05/10/2016 the Learned Advocate of the
Appellant came to know about the said Order. Therefore the Appellant under the
motivation placed such content which is not believable in any manner
whatsoever.
5.
That with respect to
paragraph number 3, wherein it has been stated that Managing Director Biswanath Mondal, who is
actually looking after the matter got seriously injured and has been suffering
from fracture and was under treatment and was under advise of bed rest. Though
no piece of paper has ever been referred to show that he is the only person in
the Appellant company to look after the matter and consequently the
acknowledgement of surprisingly injured and suffering from fracture has also
not been described sufficiently and no date or time has ever been described as
to on which date and time and in which manner the fracture occurred or which
part of body has ever been effected, and therefore contents of paragraph number
3 is not also believable and acceptable in any manner whatsoever.
6.
That with respect to
paragraph number 4 of the said petition of condonation of delay as placed by
the Appellant in this present Appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission, West
Bengal, which contained as the said Biswanath Mondal as established the false
story in two folded manner at the first as to how the Learned Advocate came to
know about the Order under challenged
only on 05/10/2016 and at the second why and how only in the month of November
2016 the said Biswanath Mondal contacted
his Learned Advocate and as it appears from the contents itself, if he did not
contact his Learned Advocate prior to the month of November 2016 then how his
diligent endeavour could not ascertained for purpose of this present
application and therefore the story as encrypted in the contents of paragraph
number 2, 3, and 4, are the false, vague, and frivolous one and none of the
word has ever been prescribed in this paragraph which make complete the
paragraphs to be believable. Very surprisingly no date and /or the date and
time has ever been given in the content in the paragraph number 4 as to on
which date or day in month of November 2016, the said alleged gentlemen has
ever been taken any necessary steps, therefore these respondents submit that
the contents are not sufficiently produced and therefore liable for the
dismissal with exemplary cost in the interest of the justice.
7.
That with respect to
paragraph number 5 and 6 of the said petition of condonation of delay before
the Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal, these respondents state that as it
appear from the content that the Learned Advocate advise to filed the Appeal
and started preparing the memo of Appeal and requested the said gentleman to
arrange the Bank Draft but as contended that due to financial crunch and due to
health condition the said gentleman could not arrange the fund. Therefore since
the said gentleman fails to described how the financial crunch sustained with
him rather to substantiate with any
piece of paper to established his statements and as it appears the
Learned Advocate is more interested in preparing the Appeal than the said
gentlemen, therefore as it appear that the
Appellant
herein have no necessity to prefer these present Appeal and this is the only,
the Learned Advocate of the Appellant, who is interested to prefer this Appeal
and further more as its established from the contents of the foregoing
paragraph being paragraph number 2, 3, and 4, of the said petition condonation
of delay are false, vague and frivolous and
therefore the petition of condonation delay is liable to dismissed with
exemplary costs thereof on the appellant, in the interest of administration of
justice.
8.
That with respect to
the paragraph number 7 and 8 that since there is no piece of paper which shows
any request of Appellant to the Learned Advocate to file the Appeal immediately
as stated therein and the present
petition of condonation of delay and consequently as stated that there are good
ground in preferring the Appeal is
baseless and not acceptable in any manner, whatsoever since nothing has ever
been described and enlisted the ground, which may show as a good ground,
whatsoever and therefore this petition of condonation of delay is liable to be
dismissed.
9.
That with respect to
the paragraph number 9, 10, and 11, these respondents submits that in the
entirety on bare reading and on careful reading also, the contents as it
appears in every sentence raise apprehension and thus not believable one and
therefore intentional latches on the part of the Appellant in preferring the
present memo of Appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986,
has been established and further therefore the petition of condonation of delay
is liable to be dismissed since there is no sufficient cause has ever been
described or prescribed in any manner including the very formal manner also for
the alleged period as of 65 days as
stated in the petition of condonation of delay placed by the Appellant is
liable to be dismissed. The prayer as made out by the Appellant in the petition
of condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost thereof
on the appellant in the interest of administration of justice.
10.
That the present
petition of condonation of delay is frivolous application before the Hon’ble
State Commission, West Bengal, by the Appellant. The Appellants as it appear
from the cause title memo of appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection
Act 1986 and the petition of condonation of delay –
a.
Mr. Biswanath Mondal
b.
Mrs. Ira Mondal
c.
M/S Greenhaven Realty
Pvt Ltd.
And
nothing has been contained that why Mrs. Ira Mondal who is one of the Director
of the Appellant Company has not taken endeavour in preferring the present memo
of Appeal Under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 before the
Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal,
and further more the Appellants herein made Sudipta Ghosh, who is one of
the Director as respondent number 3 in the present memo Appeal Under Section 15
of Consumer Protection Act 1986 before the Hon’ble State Commission, West
Bengal. The circumstances has not been described that how come one of the
Directors is made respondent and no averment has ever been prescribed on such
square in the present petition of condonation of delay. Therefore the present
petition condonation delay is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost
thereof on the appellant, in the interest of administration of justice.
11.
That the Annexure as
Annexed with the petition of condonation of delay is of total number as of 6 (
six ) pages wherein at the 1st and 2nd Annexure which do
not show any date and year however, as it appear that the age of Biswanath
Mondal has been given as 44. Thereafter at the 3rd and 4th
Annexure as it appear the Alleged Doctor is not a Doctor at all and no where it
has been shown or acknowledgement about any nature of fracture, so far. These
respondents seek an enquiry by the police authorities concerned against the
said alleged Doctor. Be it mentioned that the Annexure number 3 and 4 as it
appear that the date has been shown as 19th July 2016, The annexure
5 and 6 appears to be X-ray Report which does not shows any nature of treatment
has ever been contained to the Appellant herein and therefore since the
Annexure are also fabricated, manipulated, the present petition of condonation
of delay before the State Commission, West Bengal is liable to be dismissed
with exemplary cost in the interest of administration of Justice.
12.
That the principal of
law and the natural justice jurisprudence lies in “Vigilantibus, et non
dormientibus, jura subtenunt” as the vigilant and not the sleepy are assisted
by the laws, and therefore as it is as much as clear from the contents and
purports of the petition of condonation of delay, that the appellant is a
sleepy and not a due diligent personality in preferring the present appeal, and
therefore the petition under challenge is liable to dismissed with necessary
costs on the appellant in the interest of administration of justice.
13.
That this petition is
made bona-fide and in the interest of administration of justice.
It
is therefore prayed that your Lordship would graciously be pleased to allow
this objection against the petition of condonation of delay and to dismiss the
petition of the condonation of delay with exemplary cost on the appellant, in
the interest of administration of justice, and or to pass such other necessary
order or orders as your Lordship may deem, fit, and proper for the end of
justice.
And for this act of kindness, the
Petitioner, as in duty bound shall ever pray.
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shri Digendra Nath Roy, Son of Late Mahendra Nath
Roy, aged about ______ years, by faith Hindu, by Occupation _____________, residing
at premises being no. 35, School Road, Santoshpur, Flat no.6, Kolkata – 700 075.
I, the above deponent do hereby solemnly affirm
and declare as under :-
1 : That I am the constituted attorney of the
respondent nos. 1, and 2, herein in the present memo of appeal UNDER Section 15
of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986, and thoroughly conversant with the facts
and circumstances of the present case and am competent and authorized to swear
this affidavit.
2 : That the facts contained in my written objection,
the contents of which have not been repeated herein for the sake of brevity may
be read as an integral part of this affidavit and are true and correct to my
knowledge.
3 : I, do hereby solemnly verify that the contents
of my affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, and no part of it is
false and nothing material has been concealed therein.
Verified this ………….the day of …………….2017, at the
Alipore, Kolkata.
DEPONENT
Identified
by me,
Advocate.
Prepared in my Chamber,
Advocate.
Dated :……………2015.
Place : Alipore, Kolkata.
N O T A R Y
No comments:
Post a Comment