Orissa High Court
M/S. Kkreation Associates vs The Registrar on 13 March, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
` IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.14583 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
M/s. Kkreation Associates, .... Petitioner(s)
Bhubaneswar
-versus-
The Registrar, NCDRC & Anr. .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Biswajit Das, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. P. K. Parhi, DSGI
Along with
Mr. G. K. Nayak, CGC
Mr. R. K. Rout, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-28.01.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-13.03.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The present Writ Petition challenges the order dated 03.05.2024, passed
by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC),
New Delhi whereby the Revision Petition No. 679/2024, preferred by the
Petitioner, was dismissed.
Page 1 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
2. The Petitioner further challenges the order dated 05.07.2022, passed by
the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Odisha,
Cuttack, in F.A. No. 436/2015 and F.A. No. 555/2015.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The Petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2 executed a Sale-Purchase
Agreement on 27.02.2012 for the purchase of Flat No. A-04 in ‘The
Country Side’ Project, Bhubaneswar, for a total consideration of ₹32.76
lacs. However, the Opposite Party No. 2 paid only ₹18 lacs to the
Petitioner, which included a booking amount of ₹3 lacs and subsequent
instalments.
(ii) Pursuant thereto, a Tripartite Agreement was executed among the
Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.2, and Punjab & Sind Bank for a
housing loan of ₹25 lacs. As per the Agreement, the Opposite Party No.
2 was required to contribute ₹7.76 lacs from his personal funds, while
the Bank was to directly disburse ₹25 lacs to the Petitioner. However,
contrary to the agreed terms, the Bank remitted the loan amount to the
Opposite Party No. 2, who subsequently defaulted on his payment
obligations.
(iii) Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.2 unilaterally rescinded the
Agreement citing deficiency in service, and, vide Legal Notice dated
22.04.2013, sought a refund of ₹20 lacs.
(iv) In response, the Petitioner declared the Opposite Party No.2 a defaulter
and, vide Cancellation Letter dated 23.05.2013, asserted that any refund
would be subject to requisite deductions. Subsequently, by letter dated
Page 2 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
28.05.2013, the Petitioner apprised the Bank of the Opposite Party
No.2’s default and sought directions regarding the termination of the
Agreement.
(v) The Bank, in its Reply dated 31.05.2013, disclosed that the Opposite
Party No.2 had availed loan instalments of ₹7 lacs on 27.09.2012 and ₹8
lacs on 04.10.2012. However, upon scrutiny, the Petitioner ascertained
that these amounts was not remitted to them, whereupon the
misappropriation was formally reported to the Bank on 04.06.2013.
(vi) Notwithstanding repeated requests dated 11.06.2013, 22.06.2013, and
01.07.2013, seeking details of the Opposite Party No.2’s loan
transactions, the Bank refrained from furnishing the requisite
information, citing technical constraints. Meanwhile, the Opposite Party
No.2, vide letter dated 05.05.2013, reaffirmed his withdrawal from the
transaction.
(vii) On 26.07.2013, the Petitioner issued a Banker’s Cheque of ₹8 lacs, which
was encashed by the Bank on 29.07.2013 towards settling the Opposite
Party No.2’s loan account.
(viii) The District Commission vide Order dated 05.08.2015 in Consumer
Complaint No. 242/2013, held that the dispute arose due to scheduled
payment demands and that no deficiency of service was attributable to
the Petitioner. It further observed that allegations of construction
defects were unsubstantiated and that the Opposite Party No.2 had
breached both the Sale-Purchase Agreement and the Tripartite
Agreement. Nonetheless, the Commission directed the Petitioner to
Page 3 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
refund ₹12 lacs with interest from 04.06.2013 and imposed litigation
costs of ₹1,000/-.
(ix) Aggrieved by the Order dated 05.08.2015 in Consumer Complaint No.
242/2013, an appeal was preferred before the SCDRC. Vide Common
Order dated 05.07.2022 in FA No. 436/2015 & FA No. 555/2015, the
SCDRC modified the refundable amount to ₹10 lacs, instead of ₹12 lacs,
but enhanced the interest rate to 12% per annum from the date of the
Order until realization. It further directed that if payment was not made
within 45 days, the interest rate would escalate to 18% per annum.
(x) In compliance with the said Order, the Petitioner issued a Demand
Draft dated 03.08.2022. However, on 05.08.2022, the Petitioner filed MC-
512/2022, seeking six months’ time to pay the remaining ₹5 lacs in five
instalments at 12% per annum, commencing from September 2022.
(xi) Amid severe financial distress, the Petitioner arranged ₹13,40,000 from
family sources and issued a Demand Draft dated 12.09.2022, requesting
the Opposite Party No.2 to accept it as full and final settlement.
However, upon the Opposite Party No.2’s refusal to cooperate, the
Petitioner filed MC No. 960/2022 on 30.12.2022, seeking a directive for
the Opposite Party No.2 to accept ₹18,40,000 in compliance with the
Final Order dated 05.07.2022.
(xii) The Petitioner sought the indulgence of the SCDRC to withdraw MC
No. 960/2022, with liberty to approach the NCDRC for appropriate legal
recourse. Opting to challenge the State Commission’s Order dated
05.07.2022 on merits, contending that both the District and State
Commission’s orders lacked jurisdiction and merit, the Petitioner was
Page 4 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
granted permission to withdraw MC No. 960/2022 vide Order dated
10.11.2023.
(xiii) The NCDRC, vide Order dated 03.05.2024, dismissed the Petitioner’s
application for condonation of delay and, consequently, rejected
Revision Petition No. 679/2024 dated 22.02.2024.
(xiv) Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Revision Petition, the Petitioner has
preferred the present Writ Petition, contending that the denial of an
opportunity for a full hearing constitutes a violation of the principles of
natural justice.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Petitioner contended that the NCDRC erroneously dismissed the
Application for Condonation of Delay and, consequently, the Revision
Petition No. 679/2024 dated 22.02.2024, by incorrectly recording it as a
Second Appeal. This mischaracterization resulted in a grave miscarriage
of justice.
(ii) The Petitioner contended that although the order of the SCDRC was
passed on 05.07.2022 and the Revision Petition No. 679/2024 was filed
before the NCDRC on 12.03.2025, in the intervening period, the
Petitioner had been pursuing the matter before the State Commission,
which consumed significant time. Since the delay primarily occurred
due to time spent in the State Commission itself, it was in good faith
and for bona fide reasons. Therefore, the Petitioner should be entitled to
the benefit of such exclusion while computing the period of limitation
Page 5 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
(iii) The Petitioner contended that the Second Appeal was filed in the
NCDRC on 22/23.11.2023 and the Revision petition has been filed in its
place subsequently as liberty was granted by the NCDRC. Therefore,
the Revision Petition ought to be deemed to having been filed on
22/23.11.2023 which was the date of filing of Second Appeal and the
period thereafter should not be counted towards delay. In such
circumstances, the delay that occurred deserves to be condoned, as it
was neither deliberate nor intentional.
(iv) The Petitioner contended that the assumption that the filing of another
miscellaneous case was inexplicable if the Petitioner doubted the
SCDRC jurisdiction is erroneous. Furthermore, the conclusion that the
withdrawal of two miscellaneous cases precluded the Petitioner from
approaching the NCDRC within time disregarding the factual
complexities of the case.
(v) The Petitioner contended that the NCDRC failed to consider that the
period between the SCDRC order dated 05.07.2022 and the filing of
Second Appeal No. 05/2024 was attributable to procedural complexities
and fraudulent conduct perpetrated against the Petitioner.
(vi) The Petitioner contended that the NCDRC rigidly applied the law of
limitation instead of adopting a liberal approach, thereby frustrating the
ends of justice. It failed to acknowledge the Petitioner’s bona fide
mistake and genuine reasons for the delay, rendering the dismissal of
the Application for Condonation of Delay unjustified.
(vii) The Petitioner contended that the delay in filing the Revision Petition
resulted from exceptional circumstances constituting a ‘sufficient cause’.
Page 6 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
The first miscellaneous case, seeking an extension of time, was not
pressed as the Petitioner was misled into doing so. The second
miscellaneous case, which sought directions for the Opposite Party No.2
to accept ₹18.40 lakh through Demand Draft due to the Opposite
PartyNo.2’s evasive conduct, was withdrawn upon the Petitioner
realizing the fraud perpetrated against them. The Petitioner was unable
to invoke the NCDRC’s jurisdiction due to a bona fide mistake and a
lack of awareness regarding the fraud.
(viii) The Petitioner submitted that the NCDRC violated the Principles of
Natural Justice and the Petitioner’s rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, and
300A of the Constitution of India, as well as Regulation 14 of the
Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. The arbitrary dismissal of the
Condonation of Delay application and the resultant rejection of the
Revision Petition warrant the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash
the impugned order and a Writ of Mandamus directing reconsideration
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(ix) The Petitioner contended that the NCDRC’s refusal to consider the
impact of fraud on procedural delays resulted in a miscarriage of
justice. The Commission’s failure to recognize that fraudulent conduct
by the Opposite Party No.2 influenced the Petitioner’s course of action
effectively denied the Petitioner a fair opportunity to present their case,
further violating the principles of fairness and equity.
III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made
the following submissions in support of his contentions:
Page 7 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
(i) While passing the order on the condonation of delay, the NCDRC
observed that the Petitioner failed to satisfactorily demonstrate
sufficient cause for the delay in filing Revision Petition No. 679 of 2024.
The F.A. No. 436 of 2015 and F.A. No. 555 of 2015 were disposed of on
05.07.2022, dismissing the Petitioner’s appeal. Consequently, the order
dated 05.08.2015, passed by the DCDRC in Complaint Case No. 242 of
2014, was rightly upheld, and the prayer for condonation of delay was
rejected.
(ii) In its impugned order dated 03.05.2024, which has been challenged in
the present writ petition, the NCDRC rightly refused to interfere with
the order dated 05.07.2022. The Commission noted a delay of 428 days
between the order dated 05.07.2022 and the filing of the Second Appeal
on 23.11.2023, which the Petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain.
Consequently, the Learned Commission correctly dismissed Revision
Petition No. 679 of 2024. The Petitioner has not established any
justifiable grounds for interfering with the order dated 03.05.2024
through the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari.
(iii) It is a well-settled legal principle that a party seeking condonation of
delay must account for the delay from the very first day of the cause of
action for filing the revision. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation,
the Court, Tribunal, Commission, or Authority cannot condone the
delay. This principle has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court inState
of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Kumar Choudhary.1
2024 INSC 932
1
Page 8 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
6. Heard Learned Counsels for the parties and perused the documents
placed before this Court.
7. This case pertains to the rejection of an application for condonation of
delay in filing a revision petition before the NCDRC on the ground that
the Petitioner failed to establish ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay.
8. It is trite in law that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular
party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so
prescribes.
9. While judicial and quasi-judicial forums are often inclined to take a
liberal approach to ensure that matters are decided on their merits
rather than being dismissed on grounds of limitation, such leniency
cannot extend to the dilution or circumvention of statutory limitations.
The law of limitation serves an essential function in ensuring finality
and certainty in legal proceedings. Once an order attains finality, it
crystallizes rights in favour of the opposing party, and unless ‘sufficient
cause’ is demonstrated, delay cannot be condoned as a matter of course.
The power to condone delay is a judicial discretion that must be
exercised with circumspection, and the onus lies squarely on the
petitioner to establish a legitimate basis for seeking such indulgence.
10. ‘Sufficient cause’ necessitates a demonstrable and cogent reason that
genuinely prevented the petitioner from approaching the court within
the prescribed period. Condonation cannot be granted in cases where
delay is attributable to negligence, lack of bona fides, or sheer inaction.
Page 9 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
11. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Basawaraj and Ors. Vs. The Spl.
Land Acquisition Officer2 observed as replicated hereinunder: –
“9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant
could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the
word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, inasmuch as
may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore,
the word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which
provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to
accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and
circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the
viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In
this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should
not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of
bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances
of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted
diligently” or “remained inactive”. However, the facts and
circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to
enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the
reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to
be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the
court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from
prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation
is furnished, the court should not allow the application for
condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the
mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an
ulterior purpose. (See Manindra Land and Building Corpn.
Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee [AIR 1964 SC 1336], Mata
Din v. A. Narayanan [(1969) 2 SCC 770: AIR 1970 SC
1953], Parimal v. Veena [(2011) 3 SCC 545: (2011) 2 SCC
(Civ) 1: AIR 2011 SC 1150] and Maniben Devraj
Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai [(2012) 5
SCC 157: (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 24: AIR 2012 SC 1629].)”
(2013) 14 SCC 81
2
Page 10 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
12. It is further settled that condonation of delay is not a matter of right but
a discretionary relief, granted only upon a satisfactory demonstration of
sufficient cause. Reaffirming this position, the Supreme Court in Ram
Lal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd3, underscored the following:
“12. It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even after
sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the
condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The
proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the
exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court
by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing
further has to be done; the application for condoning delay
has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause
is shown then the court has to enquire whether in its
discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the
matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant
facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its
bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the
enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after
sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to
such facts as the court may regard as relevant…”
13. At this stage, it becomes imperative to acknowledge the distinct
framework of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is designed to
ensure swift redressal of consumer grievances. The Act mandates strict
adherence to its prescribed limitation periods, reinforcing the legislative
intent of expeditious adjudication. Any undue relaxation of these
timelines, risks undermining the efficiency and purpose of the consumer
dispute resolution mechanism.
AIR 1962 SC 361.
3
Page 11 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
14. In Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority 4,
the Supreme Court observed:
“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an
application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the
Court has to keep in mind that the special period of
limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in
consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication
of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was
to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders
of the consumer foras.”
15. A perusal of the record reveals that the revision petition, which was
dismissed by the NCDRC, arose from an order passed by the SCDRC on
05.07.2022. Subsequent to the passing of the said order by the SCDRC,
the petitioners instituted M.C. No. 512 of 2022, which was ultimately
dismissed on 06.09.2022 as not pressed. Thereafter, the petitioners once
again moved the State Commission by filing M.C. No. 960 of 2022.
However, this application too was subsequently withdrawn by the
petitioners, and vide order dated 10.11.2023, the same was dismissed as
withdrawn.
16. It further appears that the petitioners preferred a second appeal before
the NCDRC on 22/23.11.2023, which was also later withdrawn. Following
this, the petitioners proceeded to file Revision Petition No. 679 of 2024,
from which the present impugned order arises.
17. An examination of the procedural history reveals that the dismissal of
the two miscellaneous applications before the SCDRC was not due to any
4
(2011) 14 SCC 578
Page 12 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
jurisdictional defect. The NCDRC noted that the petitioners initially
withdrew their first miscellaneous application on the premise that the
SCDRC lacked jurisdiction to entertain further proceedings after
deciding the appeal. However, if the petitioners believed the SCDRC
lacked jurisdiction, their subsequent decision to file another
miscellaneous application before the same forum contradicts that belief.
This inconsistent approach undermines any claim of ‘sufficient cause’ for
the delay. Upon reviewing the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the
NCDRC’s reasoning, as it aligns with established principles of limitation
jurisprudence.
18. The NCDRC observed that the petitioners failed to offer a sufficient
explanation for the considerable delay in filing the revision petition.
While the petitioners filed two miscellaneous applications and later
withdrew them, such actions do not constitute justifiable grounds for the
delay. The substantial delay between the date of the impugned order on
05.07.2022 and the filing of the second appeal on 22/23.11.2023,
amounting to a gap of 428 days, cannot be overlooked. The petitioners’
filing and subsequent withdrawal of the applications before the SCDRC
does not alleviate this delay. The NCDRC correctly concluded that the
delay application lacked merit, and this Court concurs with that
assessment. The petitioners have failed to offer a reasonable explanation
for their inaction, and therefore, the delay cannot be condoned.
19. Upon careful scrutiny, it is clear that the petitioners have failed to
provide any justifiable grounds for the significant delay in filing the
revision petition. Their inconsistent conduct, coupled with a lack of
Page 13 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
diligence in pursuing their legal remedies, undermines any claim of
sufficient cause. The law is clear that it favours those who are diligent in
safeguarding their rights within the prescribed time limits. The
petitioners’ actions reflect a disregard for these principles, and their
failure to demonstrate a valid explanation for the delay leaves no room
for condoning it.
V. CONCLUSION:
20. In light of the foregoing, this Court finds no infirmity in the NCDRC’s
finding and emphasizes that the law cannot be bent to accommodate
inaction or delay.
21. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
22. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 13thMarch, 2025
Page 14 of 14
