M/s. SS GROUP PVT. LTD. v. AADITIYA J. GARG & ANR.
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court
- Hon'ble Judges
- Vineet Saran
- S. Ravindra Bhat
- Judgment Date
- 2020-12-17
- Court Decision / Holding
- Appeals allowed; the National Commission’s order is set aside; the written statement filed by the appellant shall be taken on record; the matter shall thereafter be proceeded with expeditiously and in accordance with law; the appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.
- Final Disposition
- Appeals allowed; no order as to costs.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- M/s. SS GROUP PVT. LTD.
Respondents
- AADITIYA J. GARG
- ANR.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sanjay K. Shandilya
- • Apoorva Agarwal
- • Abhishek
- • Mushtaq Ahmad
Counsels for Respondents
- • Naveen Kumar
Case Synopsis & Summary
The appellant-builder and the respondents had booked flats, which were not delivered within the expected timeframe, prompting the respondents to file Consumer Complaints before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking refund of money. Notices were issued in June 2020 and received by the appellant on 13 July 2020. The appellant filed a written statement on 31 August 2020, beyond the 45-day period prescribed for filing a written statement under Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, leading the National Commission to decline taking the written statement on record, relying on the Constitution Bench decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd. The appellant challenged this stance. This Court examined the Covid-19 related extension of limitation set out in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, SMW(C) No.3 of 2020, noting that the period of limitation in all proceedings was extended with effect from 15 March 2020 until further order. The Court clarified that the extended period applies to all petitions/applications/suits/appeals and other proceedings. Consequently, a delay of four days in filing the written statement is condonable. The appeals are allowed; the National Commission’s order is set aside; the written statement is to be taken on record and the matter shall be expeditiously proceeded with in accordance with law, with no order as to costs.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellant-builder contends that the period for filing a written statement under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is 30 days with a further 15-day extension. Here, the 30-day period expired on 12 August 2020 and the extended 15 days expired on 27 August 2020. The written statement filed on 31 August 2020 is four days past the extended deadline. The Constitution Bench decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage held that no written statement can be filed beyond 45 days. However, the Court’s order in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (23 March 2020) extended limitation for all proceedings due to Covid-19, applicable from 15 March 2020 until further order. This extended period applies to all petitions, applications, suits, appeals, and other proceedings. Therefore, the delay is condonable, and the appeals should be allowed, with the written statement taken on record and the matter proceeded expeditiously.”
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents rely on the Constitution Bench decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage, which holds that no written statement can be filed beyond 45 days under Section 38 of the 2019 Act. They also acknowledge the Covid-era extension of limitation but argue that the extension should be harmonized with the statutory rule. They opted not to file counter affidavits and requested disposal of the appeals. The respondents’ position is that the extension should be invoked with caution and that the record should reflect whether the delay can be condoned under the extended period. They contend that the primary issue is whether the written statement can be admitted and the case proceeded within the extended framework.”},
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd. | (2020) 5 SCC 757 | Partly Overruled / Limited | The judgment acknowledges this Constitution Bench ruling that no written statement should be admitted beyond 45 days under Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, but overrides it in the Covid-era by applying the extended limitation order (In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation) to permit condonation of a four-day delay. |
| In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 | — | Positive | The Court expressly relies on this suo motu order to extend the period of limitation across all proceedings during the Covid-19 period, thereby condoning the four-day delay in filing the written statement. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M/s. SS GROUP PVT. LTD. v. AADITIYA J. GARG & ANR. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.