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

2002 Supreme(Bom) 946

D.B.BHOSALE, R.M.LODHA
Sanjay R. Kothari & others – Appellant
Versus
South Mumbai Consumer Disputes Redressal – Respondent


Judgment

D.B. BHOSALE, J.:---These two writ petitions involve common issue as to whether parties before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short "Consumer Forum") and Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, "State Commission") are entitled to be represented by authorised agents who are not enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961 and such Authorised Agents have the right of audience. The Counsel appearing for the parties confined their arguments only on the aforesaid issue and hence we have not gone into the facts and merits of the complaints filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (For short, "Consumer Forum") by the petitioners.

2. The petitioners in the first writ petition (Writ Petition No. 1147 of 2002), who are Advocates by profession, filed complaint bearing No. 428 of 2000 against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 tour operators before respondent No. 1 Consumer Forum complaining deficiency in their service. It is the case of the petitioners that after numerous adjournments and at the stage of filing affidavit of evidence, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application dated 22nd September, 2001 objecting the appearance of Shri Jahangir Gai who was appearing as































































































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