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

N.K.BHATTACHARYYA
A – Appellant
Versus
B – Respondent


Counsel for the parties :
For the Petitioner:Mr. Bhaskar Bhattacharjee & Mr. P. Sinha, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. S.S. Mukherjee & Mr. Debasis Das, Advocates.

ORDER

Mr. N.K. Bhattacharyya, J.—Heard the submission of the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhaskar Bhattacharjee appearing with learned Advocate Mr. P. Sinha and the learned Advocate for the opposite parties Mr. S.S. Mukherjee appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Debasis Das. Mr. Mukherjee at this stage undertakes to file his power in course of this day. Let it be recorded. Considered the materials on record.

2. By the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, O.P. No. 2 before the State Commission has come up before this Court challenging the order dated 8.6.95 (not filed) whereby the said State Commission directed issuance of notice or summons upon the O.Ps. in that proceeding wherein O.P. No. 2 figured as one of the opposite parties. The relevant necessary facts on which this revisional application arises is that Smt. Soma Roy widow of late Tarit Kumar Roy, as a complainant filed an application for compensation for deficiency of medical service u/Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the West Bengal State Commission Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhabani Bhavan, Calcutta, on 8.6.95 and the same was registered there as State Commission C




















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