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

A.L.BAHRI, D.K.BHAMRAH
DELHI AUTOMOBILES – Appellant
Versus
PEE KAY SYNTHETICS – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners:Mr. S.R. Bansal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Inderjit Sharma and Mr. Rajnish Narula, Advocates.

ORDER

Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—District Forum, Amritsar on July 29,1997 finally disposed of the complaint filed by M/ s. Pee Kay Synthetics against M/s. Delhi Automobiles Limited, Jalandhar City Branch and M/s. Delhi Automobiles Limited, New Delhi headquarter and M/s. Pal Peugeot, Mumbai, manufacturer of the car. Direction was given to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, M/s. Delhi Automobiles to pay Rs. 4,40,524/- with 15% per annum interest from August 4,19% fill payment within two months from the date of communication of the order. The aforesaid order having not been complied with, an application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act was filed by the complainant. Certain objections were raised by M/s. Delhi Automobiles relating to the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum to pass the order aforesaid as well as pecuniary jurisdiction. Another objection raised was non-joinder of the manufacturer of the car as a party and finally that Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act could not be resorted to before proceedings under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act. These objections having been dismissed, the District Forum passed the impugned order to the foll











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