SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 684

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA
Siddhyvinayak Infrastructure – Appellant
Versus
Kamalakar Jayant Srivastava – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Vinay Navare, Gwen Karthika, Satyajeet Kumar, Advocates

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. The respondents, although served with the notice issued by this Court, yet have chosen not to remain present before this Court either in person or through an advocate and oppose this appeal.

2. This appeal is at the instance of the original complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur (for short ‘the District Forum’) and is directed against the judgment and order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, ‘the National Consumer Commission) dated 12th December, 2019 in the Revision Petition No. 1185 of 2015 by which the National Consumer Commission disposed of the Revision Petition filed by the appellant herein against the order passed by the District Forum, Nagpur.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The respondent no. 1 herein is the Original Complainant. He lodged a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum at Nagpur which came to be registered as the Consumer Complaint No. 305 of 2008.

4. The case of the respondent no. 1 before the District Forum was that the complainant and the appellant herein entered into a contract in connection with the purchase


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top