Internal Delays Not Enough: Court Denies Bank's Request to Proceed with Revision.
05 June 2024
Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights
A recent court order denied a cooperative bank's request to proceed with revision petitions against a State Commission order. The reason? A lengthy delay of 338 days in filing the petitions.
The bank, though under government oversight, failed to convince the court that the delay was justified. Citing established principles for condoning delays, the court emphasized the need for a "sufficient cause" beyond the petitioner's control. This could include unforeseen circumstances or actions outside their reasonable influence.
The court also highlighted the importance of balancing justice for both parties. While limitations periods can be inconvenient, they ensure cases are brought forward in a timely manner to prevent stale claims and uncertainties.
The bank's explanation focused on internal approval processes, which the court deemed inadequate. They argued that obtaining approval from the liquidator and legal counsel caused the significant delay. However, the court determined these steps should not have taken such an extended period, especially considering the bank's government affiliation.
As a result, the court dismissed both the petitions seeking to condone the delay and the underlying revision petitions themselves. The lengthy filing time exceeded the permissible limitation period, effectively barring the bank from challenging the original State Commission order.