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

LOKESHWAR PRASAD, DESH BANDHU AGGARWAL, RUMNITA MITTAL
B. B. SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
J. K. ARORA – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners:Mr. B.K. Dwivedi, Advocate.
For the Respondents: None.

ORDER

Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Prasad, President—Since the above mentioned petitions, filed by the petitioners under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) have common facts and raise common questions for consideration, the same with the consent of the parties have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned petitions, lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner No. 2 is a Company, duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 1207, Hemkunt, Rajendra Place, New Delhi. Petitioner No. 1 is the Managing Director of petitioner No. 2. The respondents had made deposits with the petitioners. The deposits, so made by the respondents, with the petitioners, were to carry interest at the agreed rate and after the date of maturity the same were payable by the petitioners to the respondents together with interest. Since the petitioners failed to pay the amount of deposit together with agreed rate of interest to the respondents, the respondents filed separate complaints against the petitioners before the concerned District For












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