Case: SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY Vs. UCO BANK AND OTHERS

3. The appellant is a Judicial Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal. According to the appellant, in a case filed against the first respondent-bank on account of non-appearance on behalf of the first respondent-bank, the bank came to be proceeded ex-parte.4. The case of the first respondent was that though it had approached by filing vakalatnama and seeking to set aside the order which was passed ex-parte, it was not being heeded to.

Court's reasoning:
6. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.7. We are of the view that there is merit in the case of the appellant. The observations which have been made against the appellant herein appear to have been unjustified having regard to the actual statutory provisions contained in the Act in question, as interpreted by this Court in a three-Judge Bench decision in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar, (2011) 9 SCC 541.