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

S.K.M.LODHA
GIRRAJ PRASAD TIKKIWAL – Appellant
Versus
RAM DEO SAINI – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Shri Uttam Kumar Tikkiwal, Authorised representative.

ORDER

S.K.M. Lodha, President ––– Shri Uttam Kumar Tikkiwal has submitted a writing that he is appearing as an authorised representative of the applicant.

2. At the request of the authorised representative of the applicant, this application has been placed before me.

Register it as a miscellaneous case.

Heard the authorised representative of the applicant at some length.

This is an application for transfer of Complaint Case No. 68/91 from the District Forum, Tonk, to any other District Forum of Rajasthan.

Eighteen complaints under S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act” herein) were filed by separate complainants against the applicant (opposite party before the District Forum, Tonk). They are pending trial before the District Forum, Tonk. The above referred complaint is one of them.

3. The applicant has alleged that the complaint against him was filed mentioning him as proprietor of Laxmi Trading Company. It has been averred in the application for transfer that the complaints were filed on the advice of Shri Ajeet Singh Ex. M.L.A., owner and proprietor of Palace Hotel. The complaints were filed by suppressing true facts on the “Sajish ayom Salah” of the proprietor and employ














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