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

M.A.A.KHAN, SUSHMA TANWAR
SUNIL KUMAR NANDAWAT – Appellant
Versus
CASTROL INDIA LTD. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Rajesh Mootha, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.

ORDER

Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, President—Heard. This revision petition is treated as an appeal under Section 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

2. The Forum has dismissed the complaint of the appellant on the short ground of non-joinder of necessary/proper parties to the complaint. The appellant had become a member of sales promotion scheme promulgated by M/s. Castrol India Ltd., the respondent, through their agent Harsh Automobiles, Bhilwara. Under the scheme, in the event of winning the prize, he was entitled to prize of a scooter. Although he became entitled to such prize, as is his case, the respondent declined to deliver the prize to him. The appellant filed complaint against M/s. Castrol India Ltd. without making M/s. Harsh Automobiles, Bhilwara as party to the complaint. The Forum held that M/s. Harsh Automobiles, Bhilwara was a necessary party to the complaint to decide the issues between the parties justly and rightly. The Forum accordingly dismissed the complaint. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that before making the impugned order the Forum did not provide an opportunity to the appellant to array M/s. Harsh Automobiles, Bhilwara as an opposite party to the co





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