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 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Pacl India Ltd. vs Col.(Retd) Harish Chandra on 3 May, 2012

  
 
 
 
 
 
 IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI
  
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 







 



 

 IN THE STATE COMMISSION:  DELHI 

 

(Constituted
under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) 

 

  

 

Date of Decision: 03.05.2012 

 

   

 

 Revision Petition No.2012/29 

 

(Arising
out of Order dated 10.04.2012 passed by the District Consumer Forum( New Delhi), M-Block, Vikas Bhawan,   New Delhi in Complaint Case No.138/2011) 

 

  

 

  

 

1.

M/s. PACL India Ltd. .Revisionist/Opposite Party 7th Floor, Gopaldas, through Mr. Subrat Deb Bhawan, advocate.

28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

 

2. M/s. Pearl Infrastructure Projects Limited, Statesman House, 3rd Floor, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

     

Versus     Col.(Retd) Harish Chandra .Respondents/Complainant.

Rastogi, Apt. J-601, Gateway Towers, Plot No.D8-A, Sector-44, Noida.

 

CORAM     Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President  

1.           Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?

2.           To be referred to the Reporter or not?

   

Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President  

1.                          In a complaint case No.138/2011 filed by the respondent complainant before District Forum(New Delhi), the Forum vide order dated 10.04.2012 declined to allow the OP revisionist to fie the affidavit of his architect in evidence, and that is what, brings him in revision before this Commission.

2.                          We have heard Mr. Subrat Deb, counsel for the Revisionist at the admission stage in this Revision.

3.                          In this case a commission was issued for preparation of the site plan and an architect and a lawyer both prepared the site plan. Objections were filed against the site plan by the revisionist OP. Te OP made an oral request before the District Forum that he be given an opportunity to file an affidavit cum report of an architect which the Forum declined.

4.                          Since objections against the report have been filed the Forum will consider the objections first and it will be open to the Forum to allow the revisionist OP to file another report of an architect, if they consider appropriate and necessary, after hearing the objections.

5.                          The revision is disposed off, in accordance with these observations.

6.                          Revisionist/OP shall remain present in the complaint case before District Forum ( New Delhi) on 10.05.2012.

7.                           A copy of this order be provided to the counsel for the Revisionist, whereas a copy of this order be sent to District Forum( New Delhi) to place it on record of complaint case No.138/2011 and for compliance. The file be consigned thereafter to Record room.

Announced on 03rd day of May 2012.

 

(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President     Tri