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

SUSHEELA CHELUVARAJU, D.R.VITHAL RAO, K.R.RAMASWAMY IYENGAR
K. C. THIMMAIAH (RTD. ) – Appellant
Versus
BAJAJ ELECTRONICS – Respondent


ORDER

Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President—In this complaint, the complainant has sought refund of the deposits made by him with the opposite party with interest thereon.

2. This complaint was filed on 26.3.1990. It could not be taken up for enquiry as there was stay order issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. After the stay was vacated, the enquiry was taken-up.

3. A notice was issued to one Sri. Paramjit Singh, M/s. Man-Jog Builders, Bangalore. Mr. Paramjit Singh, denied his liability regarding the deposits made by the complainant. So the complainant submitted to make M/s. Bajaj Electronics, 8 Proprietory concern of Sri. Manjit Singh, son of Mr. Awatar Singh, Bangalore, to be made as a party and issue notice to him as the deposits were made with M/s. Bajaj Electronics. This submission of the complainant was accepted as it is evident from the order sheet dated 1.10.92 and a notice was issued to M/s. Bajaj Electronics the Proprietary concern of Mr. Manjit Singh. The opposite party, Mr. Manjit Singh, appeared and filed statement of objections.

4. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party floated a financing scheme under the name of M/s. Bajaj Electronics, Bang






















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