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

S.M.KANTIKAR, DINESH SINGH
Superintendent of Post Office rep. by North Hoogly Division – Appellant
Versus
Sasadhar Panda – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Gaurav Rohilla, Advocate

ORDER

Dinesh Singh, Member—The rival contentions have been succinctly articulated by the District Forum in its Order dated 15.11.2017:—

The fact of the case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.1000/- through EMO to Himangshu Chakraborty, who is a very close known person to the complainant at Village & P.O. Gobindapur, Rthtala, Via Shyampur, District Howrah from Chinsurah Head Post office vide EMO no.139694140307026568 on 7.3.2014. The complainant further states that after two weeks from the date of remitting the M.O. the said money did not reach the addressee. The complainant lodged a written complaint on 28.3.2014 to the Superintendent of Posts, North Hooghly Division, regarding nonpayment of EMI, but the concerned office turned a deaf ear to the complaint of the petitioner. Lastly, the complainant came to know that the said M.O. was delivered on 5th May, 2014. Hence, this complaint filed by the complainant with a prayer as laid down in the prayer portion of the complaint.

Op no.2 contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The positive case of the oP no.2 is that one EMO for Rs.1000/- was boo

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