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

INDER JIT SINGH
Mahindra & Mahindra Farm Division – Appellant
Versus
Sumit Kumar – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Anand Shankar Jha and Mr. Abhilekh Tiwari, Advocates
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Rajinder Gulati, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2: None
For the Respondent No.3:Mr. Suman Tripathy, Advocate
For the Respondent No.4: None

ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents, as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 30.11.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 752 of 2016 in which order dated 13.06.2016 of Sonepat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 301 of 2015 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 30.11.2017 of the State Commission

2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP No.2) was Appellant and the Respondent No.1 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘Complainant’) and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were also respondent No.2 to 4 in the said FA No. 752 of 2016 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP No.2, Respondents No.1 was Complainant and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were OP Nos.1, 3 and 4 before the District Forum in the CC No. 301 of 2015. Notice was i

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