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

K.D.SHAHI, LUXMI SINGH
MATTEI GROUP OF COMPANIES – Appellant
Versus
PUNEET GARG – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. D.S. Verma, Advocate.

ORDER

Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, Chairman—This is an appeal by Managing Director, Mattei Group of Companies, 16/29, Civil Lines, Kanpur against the judgment and order dated 28.8.2001 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar to return the deposits of the complainant along with maturity value.

2. The appellant has been finding fault at the time of arguments in the frame of the complaint of the complainant arguing that what is the exact amount deposited, what is the maturity value, how it becomes 50,000/- rupees is not clear, but he did not find any fault in its Counsels, its honesty and in his pleadings. In the public, there is a mushroom growth of these Furzi companies to digest the hard earned money of poor consumers and when the question of payment arises, they start saying that they are not legally bound to refund. They do not see their moral or ethical duty, but only start finding fault with law, procedure and the conduct of the proceedings in the case. With these observations, we proceed to decide the case on merits.

3. The complainant used to deposit Rs. 50/- per day in the appellant’s Company and he deposited a total sum of Rs. 17,650/-. This amount is totally clear. Its maturity val










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