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

DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Syamasis Bandyopadhyay – Appellant
Versus
Kalyani Das Sarkar – Respondent


Table of Content
1. procedural history of the consumer complaint. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. hearing directions issued by court. (Para 9 , 10 , 12)
3. court's view on the ncdrc order. (Para 11 , 13)
4. petitioner's objections to ncdrc’s findings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 21)
5. court’s permission for surrejoinder submission. (Para 17 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 24)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails orders dated 22nd January, 2020 and 12th February, 2020, passed by the learned National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission ("the learned NCDRC"), in Consumer Case 73/2017.

2. In as much as I am proposing to dispose of this petition with an order which would not cause any prejudice to the respondent, I do not deem it necessary to issue formal notice in the matter.

3. A short history of the litigation is necessary. A complaint was filed by Respondent 1 against the petitioner and Respondents 2 and 3 before the learned NCDRC. The petitioner was Opposite Party No. 3. Replies were filed, to the complaint, by the three opposite parties, including the petitioner. On 27th April, 2017, the learned NCDRC directed the respondents to file rejoi

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