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

Shri. Tanaji Umrao Sardar & Ors. vs Amar Singh Bhagwat Patil & Ors. on 10 January, 2012

  
 
 
 
 
 
 BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 
  







 



 
   
   
   


   
     
     
     

BEFORE THE
    HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 
    
   
    
     
     

COMMISSION,  MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
    
   
  
  
   

 
  
 
  
   
   

 
  
 
  
   
   
     
     
     
       
       
       

First Appeal
      No. A/06/1859
      
     
      
       
       

(Arisen out
      of Order Dated 29/05/2004 in Case No. 375,378,380,381/2001 of District
      Solapur)
      
     
    
     

 
    
   
    
     
     

 
    
   
    
     
     
       
       
       
         
         
         

1.

Shri. Tanaji Umrao Sardar R/o. At post Tavashi, Tal. Pandharpur Maharashtra

2. Bhaskar Audumbar More R/o. At post Chale, Tal. Pandharpur Maharashtra

3. Vijay Balasabheb Deshmukh R/o. At post Kasegaon, Tal. Pandharpur Maharashtra ...........Appellant(s) Versus

1. Amar Singh Bhagwat Patil R/o. At post Degaon, Tal. Pandharpur Maharashtra

2. Anil Bhagwat Patil R/o. At post Degaon, Tal. Pandharpur Maharashtra

3. Ramesh Bhagwat Patil R/o. At Post Degaon, Tal. Pandharpur Maharashtra

4. Sou. Sunanda Premraj Patil R/o. At post Degaon, Tal. Pandharpur Maharashtra

5. Shri. Datta Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Manager, Navi Peth, Pandharpur Maharashtra ...........Respondent(s)   BEFORE:

   
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER   Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER   PRESENT:
Both parties are absent.
   
ORAL ORDER Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Both parties are remaining absent in spite of notice published on the Notice Board of this Commission, Bar and on Internet as well as separate notice sent by post by way of abundant precaution on 23/12/2011.
 
2. This appeal is against the order where it is alleged that non-bailable warrant was issued in the Execution Proceeding against the appellants. We find the appeal is misconceived. No appeal would lie against the direction to issue non-bailable warrant. Furthermore, since, purpose of non-bailable warrant is to secure presence in the Execution Proceeding since appellants were perhaps remaining absent before the Forum, we find no fault with the impugned order.
 
3. For the reasons stated above, we find that the appeal is devoid of any substance. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-:
ORDER :-
1. Appeal is not admitted and rejected accordingly.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
 

Pronounced Dated 10th January 2012. 

 

[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER       [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER dd