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

Raj Kumar vs Karvy Computershare Private Limited ... on 23 August, 2012

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
        DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

                          First Appeal No.745 of 2010

                                            Date of institution : 06.05.2010
                                            Date of decision : 23.08.2012

Raj Kumar son of Sh.Om Parkash resident of Mahavir Nagar, Malout,
District Muktsar.
                                                      ...Appellant
                      Versus

1.

Karvy Computershare Private Limited Narayani Mansion, H.N.1- 90/2/10/E, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500081 through its Chairman / Managing Director.

2. UTI Mutual Fund, Corporate Office, UTI Tower "Gn" Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbair through its Managing Director.

3. Sourav Bansal son of Suridner Kumar Bansal, resident of Gali No.2, Main Bazar Malout, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar.

4. Veena Rani Bansal wife of Surinder Kumar Bansal resident of Gali No.2, Mani Bazaar Malout, District Malout.

5. Chief Manager of UTI, Ground Floor, SCO 28, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana 141001.

...Respondents First Appeal against the order dated 26.3.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar.

Before:-

Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member Present:-
                 For the appellant :        None.
                 For the respondent :       None.

PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER

There is written request for adjournment on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent.
The present appeal was filed on 06.05.2010. Last time the appellant appeared on 17.8.2011. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant on 13.12.2011 and 16.4.2012. Even today none has appeared on behalf of the appellant. It appears that neither the appellant nor the counsel for the appellant is interested to pursue his appeal.
Dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Piare Lal Garg) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) August 23, 2012. Member Davinder