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 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Velankani Information Systems Private ... vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company ... on 11 September, 2013

Author: N.Kumar

Bench: N.Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

     DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

                        PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
                       AND
     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO

           WRIT APPEAL NOS.6484/2012
             & 3083/2013 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN :

Velankani Information
Systems Private Limited,
43, II Phase, Electronics City,
Bangalore - 560 100,
Represented by its
Authorized Representative
Ms.Anju Praksh,
Age 39 years, residing at
No.88, Upakar Residency,
1st Main, Ullal,
Viswaneedam, Bangalore.                  ...APPELLANT

       (By Sri. Shridhar Prabhu, Adv.)

AND :

1.     Bangalore Electricity Supply
       Company Limited,
       Represented by its
       Asst.Executive Engineer (E),
       S-8, Hosur Main Road,
       Bangalore - 560 001.

2.     Ombudsman,
       Appointed under the
       provision of KERC
       (Consumer Grievance
                           -2-




     Redressal Forum and
     Ombudsman)
     Regulations 2004
     6th and 7th Floor,
     Mahalaxmi Chambers,
     No.9/2, M.G.Road,
     Bangalore - 560 001.

3.   Consumer Grievance
     Redressal Forum (CGRF)
     Of Bangalore Electricity
     Supply Company Limited,
     C/o.BESCOM Corporate
     Office, K.R.Circle,
     Bangalore - 560 001.             ...RESPONDENTS

     (By M/s. V.Y. Kumar Associates, Advs. for R1)
                        . . . .

     These writ appeals are filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set-aside the order
passed in the writ petition No.29620/2010(GM-KEB)
c/w. W.P.No.31314/2010 dated 01.03.2012.

     These writ appeals coming on for preliminary
hearing, this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following:


                     JUDGMENT

It is submitted that the learned counsel for the appellant is not well, rather he is busy otherwise.

Hence, adjournment is sought.

-3-

2. We do not see any reason to grant an adjournment. Hence, appeals are dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE SPS