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

2006 Supreme(P&H) 3033

VINOD K.SHARMA
Upkar Road Lines – Appellant
Versus
Pfizer Limited – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mrs. Kanchan Sehgal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Jatin Talwar, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - This is a revision petition against the order dated 12.6.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, vide which the application, moved by the plaintiff-applicant under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in prosecuting the case before the Consumer Commission, was allowed.

2. M/s. Pfizer Limited alongwith the Oriental Insurance Company filed a complaint in the consumer Court in 1997 i.e. within a period of limitation. However, the said complaint was disposed of by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad, vide order dated 18th of October, 2000 holding therein that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and it was open to the parties to approach the Civil Court.

3. The said application was contested on the ground that the time and delay for filing the suit could not be condoned. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that period spent by the respondent herein before the Consumer Court was liable to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It further held that if the period of trial before the Consumer Commission is excluded, the suit was w









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