ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE DELAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDONED BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION IN ENTERTAINING THE APPELLANTS APPEAL. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CONTROVERSY ARISES OUT OF THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE SAID TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY RESPONDENT 2 BANK RELATING TO THE CONVERSION OF SHARES SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT 1 TO RESPONDENT 2, INTO DEMATERIALISED FORM. ON THE COMPLAINT THAT THE CONVERSION WAS BELATEDLY DONE CAUSING LASS TO. RESPONDENT 1, RESPONDENT 1 APPROACHED THE STATE COMMISSION UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT. THE STATE COMMISSION FOUND THAT RESPONDENT 2 HAD DELAYED IN THE DEMATERIALISATION OF THE SHARES AS ALLEGED BY RESPONDENT 1. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 16 OF THE DEPOSITARIES ACT, 1996, IT WAS DIRECTED THAT THE LASS OCCASIONED TO. C RESPONDENT 1 BY REASON OF SUCH DELAY WAS TO BE INDEMNIFIED BY THE APPELLANT AND AFTER THE APPELLANT INDEMNIFIED RESPONDENT 1, IT HAD THE RIGHT TO RECOVER THE SAME FROM THE PARTICIPANT BANK, NAMELY, RESPONDENT 2. 3. RESPONDENT 2 PREFERRED AN APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE STATE COMMISSION TO THE NATIONAL COMMISSION. A STAY WAS GRANTED ON THE OPERATION OF THE STATE COMMISSIONS ORDER AN 1-11-2001. 4. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, SINCE ITS LIABILITY, EVEN ACCORDING TO THE STATE COMMISSIONS ORDER, WAS DEPENDENT UPON THE FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE ON RESPONDENT 2S PART, THE APPELLANT DID NOT PREFER A SEPARATE APPEAL. ON 9-4-2002 THE NATIONAL COMMISSION CLARIFIED THAT THE ORDER DATED 1-11-2001 GRANTING STAY WOULD CONTINUE VIS-A-VIS RESPONDENT 2 BANK AN1Y. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPONDENT 1 TOOK OUT PROCEEDINGS TO EXECUTE THE ORDER OF THE STATE COMMISSION AGAINST THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT SOUGHT TO WITHSTAND THE EXECUTION AN THE GROUND THAT ITS LIABILITY WOULD ARISE AN1Y IF THE LASS WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE RESPONDENT BANK AND UNLESS THE RESPONDENT BANKS NEGLIGENCE WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE PENDING APPEAL, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT BE CALLED UPON TO PAY ANY AMOUNT. THE EXECUTING COURT, HAW EVER, REJECTED THE APPELLANTS PLEA ON THE GROUND .THAT THERE WAS NO ORDER STAYING THE OPERATION OF THE STATE COMMISSIONS ORDER AS FAR AS THE- APPELLANT WAS CONCERNED. THE MATTER WAS ACCORDINGLY ADJOURNED TO. 24-10-2002 BY THE EXECUTING COURT IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE APPELLANT TO OBTAIN THE NECESSARY STAY ORDER. 5. ON 23-10-2003 THE APPELLANT APPROACHED THE NATIONAL COMMISSION TOGETHER WITH AN APPLICATION FAR CONDO NATION IN WHICH THE AFORESAID FACTS HAVE BEEN SET OUT. THE MATTER WAS ACCORDINGLY ADJOURNED TO. 24-10-2002 BY THE EXECUTING COURT IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE APPELLANT TO OBTAIN THE NECESSARY STAY ORDER. 5. ON 23-10-2003 THE APPELLANT APPROACHED THE NATIONAL COMMISSION TOGETHER WITH AN APPLICATION FAR CONDO NATION IN WHICH THE AFORESAID FACTS HAVE BEEN SET OUT. THE NATIONAL COMMISSION, HOWEVER, REJECTED THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE DELAY WAS OF 358 DAYS FAR WHICH NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE HAD BEEN SHOWN. IT WAS ALSO SAID THAT THE IMPUGNED DECISION OF THE STATE COMMISSION WAS STILL OPERATING AGAINST THE APPELLANT "SUBJECT TO. SECTION 16 OF THE DEPOSITARIES ACT, 1996 AND THAT THE QUESTION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 16 OF THE DEPOSITARIES ACT, 1996 WOULD BE GONE INTO IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK. 6. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE NATIONAL COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE LIABILITY OF THE APPELLANT UNDER THE STATE COMMISSIONS ORDER WAS CONDITIONAL UPON NEGLIGENCE BEING ESTABLISHED AGAINST RESPONDENT 2. SINCE THAT ISSUE WAS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PENDING APPEAL, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF THE STATE COMMISSIONS ORDER BEING OPERATIVE AGAINST THE APPELLANT. IF INDEED SECTION 16(2) WAS TO BE THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF DECISION IN THE PENDING APPEAL, THE NATIONAL COMMISSION COULD NOT HAVE RENDERED SUCH DECISION AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE BY REFUSING TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS TRUE THAT RESPONDENT 2 AND THE APPELLANT ARE TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES. HOWEVER, THEY REPRESENT BUT ONE INTEREST, NAMELY, THE LIABILITY OF RESPONDENT 2 FOR NEGLIGENCE. IT WAS, THEREFORE, ONLY IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS THAT THE DELAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDONED AND THE APPELLANTS APPEAL ADMITTED. WE FIND SOME SUPPORT FOR THIS CONCLUSION IN THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN NARHARI V. SHANKAR1. NEVERTHELESS, RESPONDENT 1 IS CORRECT IN CONTENDING THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE TECHNICALLY, AT LEAST, FILED A SEPARATE APPEAL. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ALLOW THESE APPEALS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED DECISION OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION SUBJECT TO THE APPELLANTS PAYING AN AMOUNT OF RS 5000 IN EACH APPEAL BY WAY OF COSTS. 7. WE DO NOT THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO DIRECT THE APPELLANT TO DEPOSIT ANY AMOUNT AT THIS STAGE. THAT ISSUE MAY BE CONSIDERED IF AND WHEN THE APPELLANT MOVES FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF THE DECREE AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 7. WE DO NOT THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO DIRECT THE APPELLANT TO DEPOSIT ANY AMOUNT AT THIS STAGE. THAT ISSUE MAY BE CONSIDERED IF AND WHEN THE APPELLANT MOVES FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF THE DECREE AGAINST THE APPELLANT. THE AMOUNT OF COSTS SHALL BE PAID WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS FROM DATE.