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

P.N.KASHALKAR, DHANRAJ KHAMATKAR
Vandita Trivedi – Appellant
Versus
Krishna Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Ms. Vandita Trivedi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Krishna Singh, Advocate.

ORDER

P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Member— By this common judgment we are disposing of First Appeal No.09/2008 filed by the original Opponent and First Appeal No.163/2008 filed by the original Complainant challenging the judgment and award passed by the Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District on 6.12.2007. By allowing the complaint partly filed by Ms. Krishna Singh, the District Forum, directed the Opponent Advocate to refund an amount of Rs.3,750 and Rs.10,000 and also directed to pay cost of Rs.1,000 within 30 days from the date of receipt of order and rest of the relief’s were dismissed. As such, both, original Complainant as well as original Opponent, have filed these two appeals.

2. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:

Complainant appears to be an Assistant Art Director who was employed by M/s. Design Works, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai. But, she was not paid her dues for some period. Then she filed complaint under M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, before Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai for non-payment of her salary parts totally amounting to Rs.60,000. For filing proceeding before Industrial Tribunal she availed services of Opponent Advocate.

The Com

















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