DALVEER BHANDARI, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, ANIL R.DAVE
C. Venkatachalam – Appellant
Versus
Ajitkumar C. Shah – Respondent
JUDGMENT
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. — 1. These appeals emanate from the judgment dated 4.9.2002 delivered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1147 and 1425 of 2002. We propose to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment because same questions of law are involved in these appeals.
BRIEF FACTS:
2.A complaint bearing no.428 of 2000 of alleged deficiency in service was filed before the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai (for short, Consumer Forum) against the two tour operators. During the pendency of the complaint, applications were filed by the opposite parties contending that the authorized agent should not be granted permission to appear on behalf of the complainants as he was not enrolled as an Advocate. The Consumer Forum considered the applications and held that the authorized agent had no right to act and plead before the Consumer Forum as he was not enrolled as an advocate.
3.In complaint bearing no.167 of 1997 filed before the Consumer Forum, the majority expressed the view that the authorized agents have a right to file, act, appear, argue the complaint to its logical conclusion before the Consumer Agencies. The issue
6.AIR 1957 SC 628 : R.M.D. v. Union...58
8.(1994) 3 SCC 569 : Kartar v. State of Punjab...60
10.(2002) 4 SCC 105 : Bhatia v. Bulk...62
14.(2002) 6 SCC 635 : Dr. J.J. v. Shrinath...77
2.(1978) 2 SCC 165 : Harishankar v. Girdhari...21
7.(1975) 3 SCC 862 : Anandi v. Engineering...59
9.(2001) 7 SCC 358 : District v. Tata...61
11.(1994) 1 SCC 243 : Lucknow v. M.K.Gupta...74
12.(1995) 3 SCC 583 : Laxmi v. P.S.G....75
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.