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 1]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Capt. Anil Kumar Gupta & Mrs. Archana ... vs Jhb Constructions Co.Pvt.Ltd. on 3 August, 2011

  
 
 
 
 
 
 BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 
  
 
 
 







 



 
   
   
   


   
     
     
     

BEFORE THE
    HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 
    
   
    
     
     

COMMISSION,  MAHARASHTRA,
    MUMBAI
    
   
  
  
   

 
  
 
  
   
   

 
  
 
  
   
   
     
     
     
       
       
       

Complaint
      Case No. CC/02/209
      
     
    
     

 
    
   
    
     
     

 
    
   
    
     
     
       
       
       
         
         
         

1.

CAPT. ANIL KUMAR GUPTA & MRS. ARCHANA GUPTA, FLAT NO.12A, MOON BEACH APARTT., PRABHADEVI SEA BEACH, MUMBAI-25 ...........Complainant(s) Versus

1. JHB CONSTRUCTIONS CO.PVT.LTD., J.H.B. CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., MANGAL MURTI, PLOT NO.17, SETOR-30, SANPADA, NAVI MUMBAI-705.

 

2. MR. BHULAND N. YADAV, DIRECTOR, J.H.B. CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., MANGAL MURTI, PLOT NO.17, SETOR-30, SANPADA, NAVI MUMBAI-705 ............Opp.Party(s)   BEFORE:

   
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER   Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale Member   Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member   PRESENT:
Mr.M.K. Nair, Advocate for the complainants.
 
Mr.Suresh Sharma, Advocate for the opponent.
ORDER Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Advocate Mr.Suresh Sharma has filed an affidavit of Director of the Company informing that the complainants had taken possession of the premises. In view of this, we are finding that the complainants are not interested in prosecuting the complaint further. We have given 2-3 chances to Advocate Mr.Nair to produce complainants.
But, according to Advocate Mr.Nair, complainants are not approaching him for prosecuting this complaint. Even letter sent to the complainants returned unserved. Therefore, for want of prosecution, we dismiss this complaint. Hence, the following order :-
-:
ORDER :-
1. Complaint stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
 

Pronounced Dated 3rd August 2011. 

   

[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER       [Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale] Member       [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member dd