Back
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ALOK KUMAR VERMA
Hotel Urvashi – Appellant
Versus
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
1. The controversy before us is, whether the present appeal is maintainable?
2. This intra-court appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 08.05.2019, passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1463 of 2011 Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. and another v. M/S Hotel Urvashi, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition' by quashing the impugned order, in writ petition, passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as, "CGRF') on 23.07.2010 in Complaint Case No. 64 of 2009 M/S Hotel Urvashi, 494 Civil Lines, Roorkee v. Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division (Urban) UPCL, Roorkee and the order dated 07.08.2019; by which the Review Application No. 593 of 2019 was dismissed.
3. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this Special Appeal. He contended that in the light of the provisions of Rule 5 of Chapter-VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, applicable to the High Court of Uttarakhand under U.P. Re-organization Act, 2000, a remedy by filing an intra-court appeal is not available to the appellant.
4. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate for th
None. There are no indications within the provided case law that it has been overruled, reversed, criticized, or otherwise treated as bad law. The case law excerpt discusses the jurisdiction and nature of the tribunal exercising appellate powers under the Companies Act, 1956, but does not include any language or references indicating adverse treatment in subsequent judgments.
[Followed / Affirmed]
No explicit indications or references in the case law list suggest that this case has been followed or affirmed by subsequent courts. The description remains informational about the nature of the tribunal and its jurisdiction.
[Distinguished / Differentiated]
The case law does not mention any instances where it has been distinguished or differentiated from other cases.
[Criticized / Questioned]
There are no signs in the provided text that this case has been criticized or questioned in later rulings.
[Unchanged / Precedent]
The case appears to stand as a precedent regarding the tribunal exercising judicial functions under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956, prior to its amendment, without evidence of it being overruled or modified.
Given the limited information in the case law excerpt and the absence of references to subsequent treatment, the treatment of this case remains uncertain in the broader legal context. Without access to subsequent case law or citations, it is difficult to definitively categorize its current standing or treatment. Therefore, it is placed in the uncertain_cases section, acknowledging that more information would be needed for a conclusive classification.
**Source :** Jaswant Sugar Mills LTD. , Meerut VS Lakshmi Chand - Supreme Court Shah Babulal Khimji VS Jayaben D. Kania - Supreme Court Kihoto Hollohan VS Zachillhu - Supreme Court SHANTA KUMAR BELWAL VS G. S. BHANDARI & CO. - Uttarakhand Bharat Bank LTD. VS Employees Of The Bharat Bank LTD. - Supreme Court Associated Cement Companies LTD. VS P. N. Sharma - Supreme Court Engineering Mazdoor Sabha: Anglo American Direct Tea Trading Company LTD. VS Hind Cycles LTD. : Ir Workmen - Supreme Court Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. VS Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala - Supreme Court
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
