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

S.COARI, P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY
WBSEDCL – Appellant
Versus
Arabinda Ghosal – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties
For the Applicant:Mr. S. Nayak, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party:Mr. Vivekanand Ghosal, Advocate.

ORDER

P.K. Chattopadhyay, Member—This revision application is directed against the orders date 22.9.2009 and 2.12.2009 respectively passed by the learned District Forum, Birbhum in CF Case No. CC/51/O/2009, where the complainant Mr. Vivekananda Ghosal, filed the complaint case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the OPs namely WBSEDCL, represented by Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Md. Bazar, Gr. E/S, P.O. and P.S. Md. Bazar, Dist. Birbhum, relating to his existing power connection and subsequent disconnection thereof along with an application under Section 13(3B) of the Consumer Protection Act for an ad interim order directing the OPs for restoration of the electric connection. On 22.9.2009 the learned Forum below in course of admission hearing fixed the date for S/R on 23.10.2009 and proceeded to pass an interim order under Section 13(3B) of Consumer Protection Act on the application of the complainant directing the OPs as under:

“Hence, it is ordered the petition filed under Section 13(3B) of C.P. Act, 1986 is admitted. This learned Forum orders the OP, WBSEDCL, represented by Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Md. Bazar, Dist. Birbhum to r

































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