D.B.BHOSALE, R.M.LODHA
Sanjay R. Kothari & others – Appellant
Versus
South Mumbai Consumer Disputes Redressal – Respondent
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
Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd.
Prashant Vagaskar v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Madura Coats Ltd. v. S.L. Mehendle, Member, Industrial Court
Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Offshore Enterprises Inc.
Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa
Skypak Couriers Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd.
Perfect Paper and Still Commuters Pvt. Ltd. v. Bombay National Workers Union
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.