Karnataka High Court
M/S Shyam Agro Products Pvt Ltd vs Prasanna Kumari on 29 November, 2011
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WPs.40741-745/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. | DATED THIS THE 29"! DAY OF NOVEMBER: 2011 i BEFORE... | THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B'S.PATL - | W.P.Nos.40741-745 8/2010 (GM-C ON) BETWEEN: I, Ko ot M/S SHYAM AGRO PRO Du cns PYTLID, REG.OFFICE 6/1, BO KAREKKADU, KABAKA VILLAGE, ©. PUTTUR, D.K.574.203 > my REP. BY MANAGING: DIRECTOR ° GOVINDA RAJ. KO AGED ABOUT 82° YEARS. S/O K SHYAM. BHT. Lo , R/AT-KAREKX. ADU:.KABAK A VIL LAGE, NEHARU NAGAR POST. = PUTTUR. TALUK, D: Ke 574, 203 K.SHYAMA BHAT AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/C: SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, . R/AT KONDALAKANA HOUSE, «POST PANAJE: PANAJE VILLAGE, \ PUTPUR-TALUK, D.K. ... PETITIONERS . (BY SR! MANMOHA! uN P.N., ADV.) " | PRASANNA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS D/O S KRISHNAYYA ~°R/AT BEEDIMAJALU HOUSE, BEHIND LIC OFFICE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K WPs.40741-745/2010 bo SMT SARASWATHI K.S.. W/O S.KRISHANAYYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEAS R/O BEEDIMAJALU HOUSE, BEHIND LIC OFFICE PUTTUR TALUK D.K S PRATHIMA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 26 EYARS D/O S KRISHANAYYA R/O BEEDIMAJALU HOUSE, - BEHIND LIC OFFICE PUTTUR TALUK D.K iw S.PRAVEEN KUMAR |. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS D/O S KRISHANAYYA R/O BEEDIMAJALU HOUSE BEHIND LIC OFFICE PUTTUR T. ALUK D. K 5. UNION OF INDIA ; MINISTRY OF COM ISUMER. ARF AIRS," FOOD AND PUBLIC. DiST RIBE JTION, NEW DELHT, . REP. BY. ITS SECRETARY. a o .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A. HANU MAN THAPPA, ABV. FOR R5, SRI G. LAKSHMEES HW RAO, ADV. FOR R1-4) TE IESE: WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 207 'OF TH E. CONSTI TUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT SECTION 27 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT HAS TO BE READ Wr tH SECTION 51 AND ORDER 21 RULE 37 OF THE CODE "QF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND ETC. PHESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY . -- HEARING- B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE a "EOLLOWING: WPs.40741-745/2010 ORDER
1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the, Disputes Redressal Forum (for short,..'tre District Forun:), - a Mangalore, in E.P.Nos.123. 124 & 25/2007. 'The impugned orders are produced at Annexure-B seites Petitioners are also seeking a declaration that Section 27. "of the Consumer Protection Act deserves to be stead. down keeping in mind Section 51 and Urder 21 Rule, 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Several grounds are urged in. support of the relief sought. It is not necessary for this Court to examine the merits of the contentions. urged by the petitioners as, during the course of , the argumeénits, tearned counsel for the parties, on instructions from their-clienis;-have submitted that these writ petitions may be disposed af-recording the understanding reached between 7 the parties., "It is seen that the petitioners have already paid "parl-of the amount due and payable by them pursuant to the "interim order passed by this Court. Petitioners are paying a ~~ sum of Rs.56,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.539898 dated 29.11.2011 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Mangalore, in favour of WPs.4074]1 -745/2010 Prasanna Kumari -- respondent No.1. Parties have agreed that a sum of Rs.94,000/- shall be paid by the petitioners: iti . ralb settlement of their claim and in full satisfaction of, the orders. today by way of Demand Draft payable in the name of the Qna-. respondent.
3. Recording the submission fnaide by the iearned counsel for the parties, these wit 'petitions "are elisposed of. The undertaking given by the petitioner's that they will pay a sum of Rs.94,000,/- within five weeks from today is recorded. The said amount shall be paid by way. oF Demand Draft drawn in favour of the 2nd respondent. Smit Saraswathi K.S, W/o Krishanayya. » The sail payment will 'discharge all the liability that the "petitioners have incurred under the impugned orders passed by the _District "Foruin which are the subject matter of the execution proceedings in E.P.Nos.122 to 125/2007 pending on s 'the "Ale of the District Forum. The impugned orders at "Annexure-B series are set aside. It is made clear that if the . 'amount is not paid within five weeks as understood and as "directed above, this order will not enure to the benelit of the ' ky eee LA le L i 4 WPs.40741-745/2010 Ol petitioners and the respondents will be entitled to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
PKS