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

LOKESHWAR PRASAD, RUMNITA MITTAL
ANAND PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
A. M. JOHRI – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : In person.
For the Respondents: None.

ORDER

Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Prasad, President—Since the above mentioned 3 appeals are directed against a common order dated 2.3.2000, passed by District Forum-VII (Sheikh Sarai), in Complaint Case No. 426/99 — entitled Shri Anand Prakash v. Shri B.B. Sharma & Anr., Complaint Case No. 427/1999 — entitled Shri Anand Prakash v. Shri B.B. Sharma & Anr., and Complaint Case No. 323/1999 — entitled Shri Anand Prakash v. Shri B.B. Sharma & Anr., the same are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the abovementioned three appeals, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Shri Anand Prakash had filed three separate complaints before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), alleging that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 1.40 lacs, by way of loan, with Shri B.B. Sharma, Chairman, Hoffland Finance Limited, who gave him 100 Equity Shares of Indian Rayon Industries Limited; 100 Shares of India Petro-Chemicals Corporation Limited; and 100 Shares of Reliance Industries Limited, as a security against the abovesaid loan amount, advanced to Hoffland Finance Ltd. It was alleged in the complaint









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