DELHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING Vs. Y N GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -These appeals were heard on 23rd September, 1992 when no one appeared on behalf of D.E.S.U. In the circumstances, an ex-parte order was passed by this Commission on the 16th November, 1992. Subsequently, on 14th December, 1992 Shri Vinod Kumar, Advocate for respondent DESU in Appeal No. 45 of 1992 appellant in Appeal No. 30 of 1992 filed an application stating that the date of hearing in these appeals was not intimated to his client, DESU and he learnt about the decision in these appeals only on the 27th November, 1992 when the orders of this Commission were communicated to his client. He contended that the non-appearance of his client on 23rd September, 1992 was bona fide and unintentional and therefore, prayed that the order of 16th November, 1992 be set aside and the matter be decided on merits. At the hearing held on 10th February, 1993 the Commission readily accepted the petition and recalled the order already passed in the appeals and directed that the appeals should be posted for fresh hearing. It may, however, be noted that at this hearing, the Counsel for the respondent Shri Y.N. Gupta averred that intimation about the date of hearing had been duly sent to DESU and that it was wrong to say that no notice was therefore, sent to the respondent DESU.

(2.) The next date of hearing was on 15th March, 1993 when the hearing had to be postponed due to the indisposition of one of the members of the Commission. The next hearing was on the 4th of May, 1993 but it was adjourned at the request of the Counsel for DESU. The case was finally heard on 16.8.1993. At the outset the Counsel for DESU again requested for adjournment as the Senior Counsel was not reported to be well. The Commission declined to grant any further adjournment.

(3.) It was pointed out to the Counsel for DESU that his statement in his petition of 14th December, 1992 that the notice of the date of hearing on 23rd September, 1992 had not been received by him was not correct.