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

S.N.KAPOOR, B.K.TAIMNI
Zed Career Academy – Appellant
Versus
Indresh Kumar Sahu – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Randhir Jain and Mr. Gulshan Kumar Sharma, Advocates.

ORDER

S. N. Kapoor, Presiding Member—These 4 revision petitions have been directed against similar orders passed by the District Forum, Gwalior (M.P.) which stood confirmed by dismissal of all the 4 appeals filed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (M.P.) on the ground of extra-ordinary delay.

2. The common facts in these 4 cases are that the present respondents complainants took admission on the basis of advertisement in Level-4 courses of 21 months’ duration. The advertisement given for admission indicated that 100% paid job was guaranteed to the aforesaid complainants respondents. Accordingly, they too, admission by depositing a sum of Rs.55,000. But, Zed Career Academy, the petitioner issued receipt of Rs. 52,000 and assured in writing that 100% job would be provided in April, 2002. The complainants respondents appeared in examination. Result was declared. But, neither the Diploma was given nor they were given paid job. The complainants respondents filed complaints for refund of Rs.55,000 along with interest and Rs.4,00,000 lakhs for loss of their precious time of 19 months.

3. In so far as Zee Interactive Learning System Ltd. was concerned, it conte


















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