N.C.SHARMA, SUBHASH PUROHIT, FIROZA BANO
SIPANI AUTOMOBILES LTD. – Appellant
Versus
SUSHEELA GUPTA – Respondent
Mr. Justice Navin Chandra Sharma, President — All the above mentioned appeals and revisions would be decided by a common order as they involve identical questions of fact and law. In all these matters M/s. Sipani Automobiles is a party and they relate to the refund of the booking amount of the car manufactured by M/s. Sipani Automobiles upon cancellation of the booking order.
2. Appeal No. 1324/94 is against the order of the District Forum, Jaipur dated 10.1.94 whereby the District Forum directed M/s. Sipani Automobiles and M/s. Sobhag Agencies to refund the booking amount of Rs. 10,000/- with respect to the car alongwith interest at 7% p.a. from 17.6.89 to 25.9.92 and thereafter at 13% p.a. and Rs. 500/- as costs. Similarly Revision No. 151/95 is against the order of the District Forum, Udaipur dated 10.8.94 whereby refund of the booking amount of Rs. 10,000/- was allowed in favour of the complainant and against M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. with interest. Revision No. 160/95 has been filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Jaipur 1st whereby the application of the complainant under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was dismissed by the D
6. II (1994) CPJ 1 (SC). (Followed)[Para 8]
9. 1992 (1) CPR 353. (Followed)[Para 10]
10. II (1991) CPJ 30=1991 (1) MWR CPC 29. (Followed)[Para 10]
12. 1992 (2) CPR 467. (Followed)[Para 10]
13. II (1993) CPJ 617. (Followed)[Para 11]
14. 1993 (1) CPR 515. (Followed)[Para 12]
15. II (1995) CPJ 98. (Followed)[Para 12]
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.