Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Sri Mukul Roy Chowdhury vs Sri Ram Chandra Shaw, Sole Proprietor ... on 9 October, 2018

  	 Cause Title/Judgement-Entry 	    	       STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  WEST BENGAL  11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087             Miscellaneous Application No. MA/122/2018  ( Date of Filing : 17 Sep 2018 )  In  First Appeal No. A/1306/2015             1. Sri Mukul Roy Chowdhury  Kol. ...........Appellant(s)   Versus      1. Sri Ram Chandra Shaw, Sole Proprietor M/s. Sarada Construction  Kol. ...........Respondent(s)       	    BEFORE:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS PRESIDENT    HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY MEMBER          For the Appellant: Mr. Nil Ratan Ray, Advocate    For the Respondent:  Mr. Gouranga Gupta Roy , Ms Mousumi Chakraborty, Advocate     Dated : 09 Oct 2018    	     Final Order / Judgement    
 

HON'BLE JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, PRESIDENT    The Miscellaneous Application being 122/2018 is filed for correction of some typographical mistakes in the judgment dated 17-01-2018 passed in FA/1306/2015. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is brought to our notice that in the judgment there are some typographical mistakes with regard to the case no. and with regard to an amount to be realized by the complainant. In the 3rd line of 1st page the Judgment case no. written as CC/499/2014 and in the 3rd line from the top of page 2 of the judgment the case no. CC/499/2014 would be CC/327/2014 in both the cases. In 10th and 11th line from the top of the 3rd page of the judgment two amounts Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh) and Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh) would be read as 'for a consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh)out of which Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh) was paid by him instantly'. There are also other typographical mistakes which we point out in the 2nd page of the judgment at 7th line from the bottom where it was 'did not agreed' would be 'did not agree' and in the 14th line from the top of the 3rd page the word 'complainant' would be replaced by removing the word 'complaint'. We allow the petition to that effect by removing these defects as pointed out in MA/122/2018 as well as by Ld. Counsel for the parties and this order is made part of the final order dated 17-01-2018. The MA/122/2018 is thus disposed of.     [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS] PRESIDENT   [HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY] MEMBER