STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Revision Petition No.RP/24/7 (Arisen out of order dated 23/01/2024 in Complaint No.CC/237/2022 of District Commission, Additional Thane)

1. Mr.Marvel Buildcon, A Registered Partnership Firm, Having address at:

Plot No.3, Sector-19, Ulwe, Navi Mumbai- 410 206.

2. Shri Dinesh S. Bhanushali, Partner of M/s.Marvel Buildcon, Add: Devki Nandan, Plot No.9D, Sector 3E, Airoli, Navi Mumbai 400 708.

3. Shri Sanjay Bhanushali, Partner of M/s.Marvel Buildcon, Add: Devki Nandan, Plot No.9D, Sector 3E, Airoli, Navi Mumbai 400 708. ....... Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. Shri Ganeshan Neelantan, Add: 8, 595/D, Narendra Villa, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Matunga, Mumbai – 4100 019.

2. Shri Chandrasekhara Reedy, Partner of M/s.Marvel Buildcon, Add: Row House No.44/8, Arunodaya CHS Ltd., Sector – 6, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703.

3. Shri Pavan Kumar Bajaj, Partner of M/s.Marvel Buildcon, Add: B/201, 2^nd Floor, Butterfly Building, Bhavani Shankar Road, Dadar, Mumbai – 400 028. ………Respondent(s)

BEFORE Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C. Premchandani – Member For the petitioner(s) : Advocate Rajkumar Jagtap For the Respondent(s): Advocate Sushil Chavan for respondent no.1.

ORAL ORDER

(13/08/2024)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani – Member:

(1) This Revision Petition has been filed u/sec 47(1) (B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for setting aside “No Written Version” order dated 23/01/2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Additional Thane in Complaint No.237 of 2022.

Gist of the Petition is as under:

(2) The Petitioners submitted that the respondent no.1 was aware that the petitioner had sold the office situated in Navi Mumbai. In spite of that he had issued notice to Respondent nos.1 to 3 in original Complaint. The same has been returned back with the remark “left address”. The petitioner further contended that the Respondent no.1 has also moved an application for issuance of notice by paper publication. The same was published on 16/05/2023. The Opponent nos.1 to 3 appeared before the District Commission, Additional Thane and moved an application for supply of documents and copy of the complaint so that they can able to file the written version on record. However, the said application was rejected and No Written Version order was passed by the District Consumer Commission. Against the said order the present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the impugned order and allow the petitioner to file written version in Complaint No.237 of 2022 before the learned District Commission.

(3) Notice was issued to the respondent no.1. Respondent No.1 appeared through Counsel and filed written notes of arguments wherein it is contended that as per Order 30 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as well as Section 24 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, the partner of the firm was served with the notice. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were well aware about the proceedings/consumer complaint pending before the District Consumer Commission. It is admitted fact that Section 24 of the Partnership Act provides that the effect of notice to a partner who habitually acts in the business of the firm of any matter relating to the affairs of the firm operates as notice to the firm, except in the case of a fraud on the firm committed by or with the consent of that partner. It is further contended by the Respondent no.1 that other respondents in the original complaint have been served with the notice as the partners of the Petitioner No.1. Hence, there is good service and the District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order. Therefore, the present Revision Petition may be rejected with costs.

(4) The Counsel for the petitioner also field written notes of arguments.

The same contention has been narrated which has been narrated in the Revision Petition.

(5) Heard both sides Counsel. Perused the Revision Petition. Copy of the order dated 23^rd January, 2024 and the list of do