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

AVTAR PENNATHUR, B.L.ANAND, PRITHVI RAJ
BYFORD – Appellant
Versus
RAMESH TANEJA – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Sh. T.S. Ahuja, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Sh. Raman Taneja.

ORDER

Mr. Justice Prithvi Raj, President—This appeal has been filed against the order of the District Forum dated 22.2.90 whereby the learned Forum ordered the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 4,735/- to the respondent within one month of the date of the order.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a complaint dated October 21, 1989 before MRTP Commission, New Delhi against the appellant. Copy of the said complaint was filed by the respondent in the District Forum which was registered as complaint case No. 1605 of 1989. The appellant in their reply dated 17.2.90 opposed the application on the ground that MRTP Commission and the Directorate General of Investigation and Registration were already seized of the matter, jurisdiction of the District Forum could not be involved in parallel proceedings in respect of the same subject matter.

3. The appellants further contended that the main grievance of the respondent was to direct the appellant to take back the car (Padmini BE Model Deluxe) and refund the full amount paid towards its purchase that being so the appellants questioned the jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint on the plea that the price of








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